"He can walk out any day": Supreme Court warns of risks in live-in relationships
NEW DELHI: In a significant observation regarding the legal boundaries of modern relationships, the Supreme Court of India recently addressed the complexities of "false promises of marriage" within long-term live-in arrangements. A two-judge bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, was hearing a petition from a woman who alleged she was sexually exploited and eventually abandoned by her partner of 15 years.
The case centers on a woman from Madhya Pradesh who was widowed at the young age of 18. She claimed that a friend of her relative—a government employee—approached her under the guise of emotional support and a promise of marriage. According to the petitioner, the man used his stable position and the promise of a legal union to initiate a physical relationship. Over the next 15 years, the couple lived together and raised a child, who is now seven years old. However, after a recent falling out, the woman filed a complaint of sexual assault, arguing that her consent over those years was obtained through a fraudulent promise that was never intended to be kept.
Justice Nagarathna, however, raised concerns about the longevity of the relationship, questioning how an allegation of "sexual assault" could persist after 15 years of consensual cohabitation. The bench noted that the inherent danger in live-in relationships is the ease with which a partner can "walk out" due to the absence of a formal marital bond. "He walks out because there is no marriage bond. That is the risk. Once he walks out, does it become a criminal offence?" the Court remarked, highlighting the difficulty in criminalising the end of a long-term domestic partnership.
The Court expressed sympathy for the woman’s situation but remained sceptical of the criminal charges, noting that a complaint filed after more than a decade of living together suggests the legal action may be a reaction to a personal dispute rather than a lack of initial consent. The Justices pointed out that if a legal marriage had existed, the woman would have had clear statutory protections. For instance, if the man were already married (as was alleged), she could have filed for bigamy and approached the court for maintenance.
Moving away from the criminal aspect, the Supreme Court suggested that mediation might be the most constructive path forward. The bench emphasised that the primary concern should be the welfare of the seven-year-old child and whether the father, given his employment status, would provide financial assistance. Rather than pursuing a lengthy criminal trial, the court urged both parties to explore a settlement that secures the child's future. The matter is set for a follow-up hearing on May 25 to assess the progress of these mediation efforts.