'Lived Together For 15 Years, Even Have A Child': Supreme Court's Stern Observation On Woman's Allegation Against Live-in Partner

New Delhi: When a relationship is formed on the basis of mutual consent, where does the question of a crime even arise? The Supreme Court posed this question to a woman on Monday. The woman had challenged an order issued by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had quashed an FIR registered against her former live-in partner. The case pertained to allegations of sexual exploitation under the false promise of marriage.

A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan raised pertinent questions regarding the case, noting that the woman had lived with the man for 15 years and that they also share a 7-year-old child.

Citing a news agency report, Justice Nagarathna was quoted as observing: "When a relationship is based on mutual consent, where does the question of a crime arise? They lived together for 15 years; the woman even has a child with the man, yet they never married. And now she is alleging sexual exploitation?"

What About 'Promise of Marriage' and Legal Recourse?

The woman's counsel informed the Court that her husband had already passed away, and it was her brother-in-law who had introduced her to the accused.

The Court was further apprised that the accused had promised to marry the woman and had sexually exploited her. In response, the Court asked: "Why did she move in and start living with the man *before* getting married?"

The Court remarked: "She lived with him. She even bore him a child. Now, the man ends the relationship and walks away—simply because there was no marriage or legal bond between them. Such risks are inherent in a live-in relationship. Therefore, when a partner decides to end the relationship and leave, it does not automatically constitute a crime."

When the woman's counsel argued that the accused had concealed his first marriage and made a false promise of marriage, the Bench observed: "Had they actually married, the woman's legal position regarding her rights would have been much stronger. She could have filed a case for bigamy. She could have also claimed maintenance. She would have been entitled to all those forms of legal relief." "But now, given that they were never actually married and were merely cohabiting, this inherent risk remains. They could sever the relationship and part ways at any moment. What, then, can we do in this situation?"

What About the Child's Future and Path to Reconciliation?

She suggested that the woman could avail herself of other legal remedies, such as seeking maintenance for the child. Additionally, she advised both parties to opt for mutual reconciliation (mediation).

Justice Nagaratna observed, "Even if the man were to be sent to jail, what would the woman gain from that? We could consider arranging for some maintenance for the child. The child is now seven years old. At the very least, some form of financial compensation could be arranged for the child."

The Supreme Court issued a notice in this matter and directed the parties to explore whether a settlement could be reached between the petitioner and the accused.

What is the case?

It is pertinent to note that this case originates from Madhya Pradesh, where the High Court had quashed the FIR registered against the man. The woman had challenged this very order in the Supreme Court. The woman alleged that, following the death of her husband, the accused had lured her with a false promise of marriage and subjected her to sexual exploitation.