_edited.png)
Authored by - Esha Jaiswal (Intern at Legal Soch Foundation)
Meta Description: The news deals with the live-in relationship between two married couples is legal but women cannot later accuse the man of rape on the pretext of marriage.
Keywords: Live-in Relationship, Morality, Public Norms
The Delhi High Court said that two adults who are married to different persons can continue their live-in relationship with the consent of each other. It may not be socially acceptable, but it is not an offence in the eyes of the law. It was held in the recent case of S. Rajadurai v. State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr.
A judgement was released on September 13, 2023, by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. It was related to the case of two consenting adults who are married to two different people but living together under a live-in relationship, and the protection and remedies available under Section 376 (Punishment of Rape) cannot be extended to that victim because, here, the complainant herself was not legally eligible to marry her live-in partner because of her existing marriage with another person; she cannot claim rape on the pretext of marriage with her live-in partner and was induced into a sexual relationship with him under false promises.
The court made the observations while quashing the rape case, where married individuals live together. The accused cited several grounds, including the complainant’s morals being against public norms and passing derogatory statements.
The court said that the immorality of an act on the part of the female partner should not be argued alone, as the male partner is equally responsible for the act against societal norms.
Justice Sharma I observed that a court of law cannot deal with cases according to legal moralists preaching morality. They must have a pragmatic and critical approach to solving the case's by-laws and legislation and criminal aspects derived from the cases and landmark precedents of those criminal cases.
The court also added that attaching the criminality of the law to the notion of morality could be dangerous because criminal and moral wrongdoing are two separate things. Adults are free to make their own choices; sometimes it would not be under the societal norms or morality of the society but would not be considered an offence. Both men and women should remain conscious of the repercussions and ready to face the consequences of relationships.
In the present case, the Court allowed the man’s plea and quashed the FIR for rape because the man could not have induced her into a sexual relationship on the pretext of marriage since she was ineligible for marriage because of her existing marriage.
Prosecution: Additional Standing Counsel Rupali Bandhopadhya
Advocates on behalf of the complainant: Adv. Varun Kumar, Adv. M. D. Jangra, and Adv. Shitanshu
LinkedIn Link - https://www.linkedin.com/company/legal-soch-foundation/
Telegram Link - https://t.me/legalsochfoundation
Those interested in reading news - https://chat.whatsapp.com/Ez1LHrBwTrtKysBz4nViKt
Comments