Sexual Intercourse And Live-In Relationships
By A Special Correspondent
First publised on 2021-03-03 03:18:22
About the Author
The Supreme Court has ruled that a man cannot be held for rape for having sexual intercourse with a prolonged live-in partner who he had promised to marry but later reneged on the promise. The court has ruled that the very fact that they were in a prolonged live-in relationship, regardless of the promise to marry, and used to have regular sexual intercourse proves that the woman was a willing partner in the act. While terming the failure to keep the promise of marriage as âwrongâ, the court categorically said that sexual intercourse under such circumstances could not be categorized as rape.
This has been a grey area in Indian laws and different courts have given different judgments in different cases. Since there is no clear law on the subject, it is difficult to consider sexual intercourse done through promise of marriage in a live-in relationship as rape. The apex court is right in the sense that it was not a one-off thing â it was not as if the man had sexual intercourse with the woman once or twice by promising to marry her and then vanished. It was not as if marriage was the carrot dangled to have sexual intercourse with the woman. The couple in the instant case were in a prolonged live-in relationship. The promise to marry was made. But in a prolonged relationship, there are many factors at work and either of the live-in partners could opt out at any point of time. It is wrong then to hold the man liable to rape. What would happen if the woman walks out of the live-in relationship after promising to marry the man and after having regular sexual intercourse with him? She can be charged only with breach of promise. Hence, the law should be the same for both and the man should also be charged with breach of promise and not rape.
