‘Live together, split up, then complaint’: Supreme Court cautions against criminal cases after live-in break-ups

THe sublime margaret court on mon cautioned against the “vagaries of relationships exterior spousal relationship” while expressing concern over a growing tendency to invoke criminal law after the breakdown of live-in relationships.A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan questioned whether a long-term live-in arrangement culminating in the birth of a child could, by itself, give rise to a criminal charge of sexual assault on a false promise to marry.“This is what happens in live-in relationships. For years they live together…if they split up, the woman files a complaint for sexual assault,” observed the bench, describing these as the “vagaries of relationships outside marriage.”The court’s observations came as it issued notice on a woman’s plea challenging the quashing of her FIR against her former partner and nudged the parties towards exploring a mediated settlement.ALSO READ | SC warns Union govt of contempt over delay in minor’s abortion orderIt was hearing a challenge to a Madhya Pradesh High Court quashing order in rape on false promise case, which had set aside criminal proceedings under provisions of BNS. The complainant alleged that she had been induced into a relationship on the promise of marriage, unaware that the accused was already married, and was later abandoned after years of cohabitation.During the hearing, the bench repeatedly probed the nature and duration of the relationship, noting that the parties had lived together for years and had a child. It questioned how such a relationship could later be recast as a criminal offence. “Where is the question of offence when there is a consensual relationship? They are living together and she begets a child from him and then there is no marriage… and then she says sexual assault? For how long they lived together? For 15 years they lived together,” it added.ALSO READ | Stabbed lawyer denied treatment at 3 Delhi hospitals, SC orders probe‘Risk in live-in relationships’Even as the court acknowledged that the complainant had entered the relationship when she was just 18 and had allegedly been misled, it emphasised that the legal threshold for a criminal offence must be carefully distinguished from the consequences of a failed personal relationship.Justice Nagarathna underscored that in the absence of marriage, parties in a live-in relationship assume certain risks. “She lived with him. She had a child from him. He walks out because there is no marriage bond…that is the risk in a live-in relationship,” the court said, adding that such conduct, by itself, does not automatically attract criminal liability.The bench also noted that had there been a valid marriage, the complainant would have had access to clearer legal remedies, including proceedings for bigamy or maintenance. “See, if there was marriage, the question of her rights would have been better. She could have filed regarding bigamy. She could have filed for maintenance. She would have got those reliefs. Now since there is no marriage, they live together. This is the risk. They can walk out any day. What do we do?”ALSO READ | Ludhiana: Man booked for assaulting, shaving live-in partner’s head, says PoliceWhile declining to delve into allegations relating to the accused’s conduct with other women, the court confined itself to the facts of the present case and suggested that the complainant may explore civil remedies, particularly for the maintenance and welfare of the child. It also flagged the delay in initiating criminal proceedings, questioning the timing of the complaint after 15 years of cohabitation. The bench indicated that incarceration of the accused may not necessarily address the complainant’s immediate concerns, especially those relating to the child.