Every relationship that doesn’t lead to marriage isn’t rape: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court warned against labeling every failed relationship as a rape case, stating that it can harm genuine cases of sexual assault.

Attempts to paint every instance of a failed relationship as a rape case can adversely impact the legal prospect of genuine cases of sexual assaults, the Supreme Court said on Monday, adding that couples choosing to have a consensual and continued physical relationship should also be ready to face the eventuality of not getting married to each other.

A view of the Supreme Court of India (ANI)

“Either you live by more conventional standards or choose your own ways of living. In metropolitan towns, many young people are choosing the latter. So far as it is consensual and between adults, there is no problem. But when you choose to live by your own standards, you should also be ready to face all the possible consequences,” a bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia remarked.

The court was hearing an appeal filed against a Madhya Pradesh high court order of April 18, quashing a rape case against a man who was put in the dock for having sexual relationship with a woman allegedly on the false pretext of marriage.

Approving the high court order, the bench noted that the couple was together for five years before the woman decided to register a first information report (FIR) against the man at a police station in Gwalior. The man was 31 and the woman was 30.

“How is it rape? This is an instance of a relationship of five years with physical relations which has now gone sour... It is these types of cases which create problems for the genuine cases… make the genuine cases problematic for the courts to deal with,” the bench told the lawyer appearing for the woman.

Responding, the lawyer argued that the facts of the case make out for a charge of rape since the man refused to marry her despite having a physical relationship with her for almost five years.

“So what? So, in every case, where physical relationships continue for a long time and the relationship does not end up in a marriage, should it be called a rape? That cannot be,” retorted the bench, dismissing the appeal filed by the woman.

In its April 18 order, the high court scrapped the FIR against the man, underlining a distinction between a false promise given on the understanding by the maker that it will be broken, and the breach of a promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled.

“Only a false promise to marry made with an intention to deceive a woman would vitiate the woman’s consent being obtained under misconception of fact. But a mere breach of promise cannot be said to be a false promise,” the high court held. It added that the present case could be a case of a breach of promise, but it cannot be said that the consent of the woman for physical relationship was obtained under a misconception of facts or false pretext.

A bill tabled by the Union government in Parliament on August 11 to replace the British-era Indian Penal Code (IPC) creates a separate offence for tricking a woman into having sexual intercourse under a false pretext of marriage or any inducement such as job or promotion.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023, which has been sent to a parliamentary panel for scrutiny, earmarks a distinct offence to penalise acts of beguiling women into a sexual relationship, and make the offence punishable with a jail term of up to 10 years.

Section 69 of the bill states: “Whoever, by deceitful means or making by promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, and has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.”

The explanation to this section clarifies that “deceitful means” shall include the false promise of employment or promotion, inducement or marrying after suppressing identity.

In a 2019 judgment, the apex court urged courts to distinguish between rape and consensual sex. “The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception,” it said.

If the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the woman to indulge in sexual acts, the top court added, such an act would not amount to rape.