New Delhi: Live-in relationships should be viewed as Gandharva (love) marriages and women in such relationships granted the status of a wife, observed the Madras High Court as it refused anticipatory bail to a man accused of sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage and directed the police to invoke Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a provision that criminalises sexual intercourse through deceit.
In doing so, the court said that live-in relationships are a “cultural shock” to Indian society and couples assume they are modern while opting for such arrangements, but without understanding the legal consequences that follow when the relationship breaks down.
“After some time when they realise that the live-in relationship is not granting any protection as granted under marriage, the reality catches as fire and starts burning them,” the court added, cautioning that women are often left without any statutory safeguards once live-in relationships collapse.
Justice S. Srimathy of the Madras HC was hearing a petition filed by a man called Prabhakaran seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a 2024 FIR, where the complainant had alleged sexual intercourse by deceitful means after repeated assurances of marriage.
Sexual intercourse by deceitful means, such as on the false pretext of marriage, is a crime under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which prescribes punishment of up to 10 years’ imprisonment and fine.
Dismissing the plea, the court held that where a man has sexual relations with a woman on the assurance of marriage and later refuses to marry, the conduct squarely attracts Section 69 of the BNS.
The court said it was “left with no option” but to allow prosecution under the provision once the accused declined marriage after repeated assurances, and especially after admitting to the relationship during police inquiry.
What the case is about
The complainant said she and the accused had known each other since school and later entered a relationship. She alleged that the relationship turned physical after repeated assurances of marriage.
In August 2024, the two left their homes to get married. They returned after police intervention, following a missing person complaint filed by the woman’s family.
During the police inquiry, the accused admitted to the relationship and again promised marriage, after he cleared the railway recruitment exams he was preparing for.
The relationship later broke down, and the woman filed a complaint alleging cheating and criminal intimidation.
The court noted that Section 69 of the BNS, which criminalises deceitful sexual intercourse, was not included within the FIR and directed the state to include the section.
The accused sought anticipatory bail and said the relationship was consensual and he had ended it after he found out about the woman’s past relationships. He also cited unemployment and financial stress as reasons for not marrying her.
Why court rejected bail plea
Rejecting the bail plea, the court stressed that Section 69 of the BNS creates a separate offence for sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means, even when the act does not amount to rape.
Justice Srimathy noted that earlier such cases were examined under cheating or rape provisions of the IPC. Under the new criminal law, Parliament has enacted a specific offence for false promises of marriage followed by sexual relations.
The court found prima facie material to show that the accused continued the physical relationship on the assurance of marriage and later backed out.
Since the accused refused to marry, the court said prosecution under Section 69 was unavoidable and custodial interrogation was necessary because of the nature and gravity of the offence.
Court’s wider observations
The court also flagged what it called a gap in legal protection for women in live-in relationships.
The court noted that minors are protected under POCSO and married women have statutory remedies, but women in live-in relationships do not have access to such specific remedies.
“Now a vulnerable section of women are facing mental trauma by the concept of ‘live-in relationship’ and are falling prey to it. Absolutely there is no protection at all,” thecourt observed.
The court added that couples accept live-in relationships as “modern” but later attack a woman’s character when disputes arise.
The court also recorded that during settlement talks, the complainant refused compensation, fearing she would be labelled as someone who “slept for money”, a concern the court said reflected the gravity of the problem.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)