Married Women Cannot Allege Rape by Live-In Partner Under False Pretext of Marriage
Image Source: The Sentinal Assam
The Delhi High Court ruled that a rape case against a man who is also married by his live-in partner cannot be upheld because the woman cannot assert that she was coerced into a sexual connection under the pretense of marriage.
In a ruling issued on Thursday, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the case involved two people who could not legally wed each other but was living together under a “live-in relationship agreement,” and that, as a result, the protection and remedies provided by Section 376 (punishment for rape) of the Indian Penal Code cannot be extended to such a “victim.”
While the parties have the right to make their own decisions, the judge noted that while a live-in relationship between two consenting adults who are married to separate partners has not been made a criminal offense, both men and women should “remain conscious of the repercussions” of such a relationship.
“The petitioner could not have lawfully married the complainant/respondent No. 2 because she was not officially divorced at the time of the marriage and remains so to this day. Additionally, the fact that they were cohabiting or continuing their relationship because the petitioner/accused had promised to marry them was not addressed in the agreement,” according to the court.
“The victim cannot declare that he was compelled into a sexual relationship based on marriage if he does not have the right to marry due to a previous marriage. Therefore, a victim who was not legally permitted to marry the person she was in a sexual connection with cannot benefit from the protection and remedies provided by Section 376 of the IPC,” the court observed.
The petitioner accused in the current case requested the FIR for an alleged rape be dismissed. He made several arguments, one of which was that the complainant’s actions directly violated social norms and public policy.
In the ruling, Justice Sharma condemned the accused’s use of “derogatory” comments against the complainant and criticized his “misogynistic thinking.” The court ruled that judges cannot make moral determinations based on a person’s gender and that the same rules applied to the male partner.
“The court said that while the immorality of the act of a female partner was long discussed in court, the same standard applied to a male partner, and gender should not be discriminated against, because that would perpetuate misogynistic thinking,” said the court.
It stated that regardless of a couple’s marital status, sexual contact established between consenting adults does not constitute an offense and that courts cannot “serve as legal moralists preaching morality” or “inject morality into existing laws.”
According to the court, in many cohabiting relationships, both parties may be single, both parties may be married, or both parties may be married to a spouse.
“Individual adults are allowed to make decisions even if they don’t conform to societal standards or expectations, but in those situations, they must be prepared to deal with any negative effects of such connections. These kinds of personal freedom decisions always result in personal obligations and consequences,” it continued.
Team Profile
Latest entries
Article30 September 2023Can RPF Personnel Be Treated As ‘Workman’ For Compensation Purposes? SC Decides
English30 September 2023High Court Expounds: The Statement of an Eyewitness Must Be Free from Blemish and Devoid of Any Ambiguity, Uncertainty, and Loopholes
News29 September 2023Radhasoami Satsang Bhawan: The High Court Directs to Maintain the Status Quo On Land in Agra until Oct 5- News28 September 2023Denying Child’s Affection to Other Spouse Cruelty: High Court
