Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

In a groundbreaking verdict, the Rajasthan High Court has upheld the supremacy of constitutional morality over societal conventions, ruling that consensual sex outside of marriage is not a statutory offence.

The court, presided over by Justice Birendra Kumar, noted that, “While it is true that the mainstream view in our society is that sexual contact should take place only between marital partners, no statutory offence takes place when adults willingly engage in sexual relations outside the marital setting.”

The court also observed, “a live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterogenic sex does not amount to any offence (with the obvious exception of `adultery'), even though it may be perceived as immoral.”

The case under scrutiny involved the dismissal of a First Information Report (FIR) filed under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dealing with Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage. Ranveer, the respondent, approached the court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.), seeking to overturn the order dismissing the FIR. Ranveer filed an FIR alleging his wife's abduction by the accused in a criminal petition. However, during proceedings, Ranveer's wife, identified as respondent no.3, appeared in court and stated in an affidavit that she had voluntarily entered a live-in relationship with Sanjiv, one of the accused, refuting the abduction claim.

Owing to the victim herself confirming before the court that she was not abducted, lead the court to conclude that no offence under Section 366 IPC was established. Consequently, the court quashed the FIR.

However, the husband argued that the victim, a married woman, admitted to being in an extramarital relationship akin to a live-in arrangement with another man. Therefore, the offences under Sections 494 and 497 IPC were applicable. Moreover, it was contended that the court should intervene to uphold social morality and not condone extramarital relationships by married individuals.

However, the court took cognizance of the victim. Referencing legal precedents such as Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India (2018) and Safi Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M. (2018), the court stressed the importance of constitutional morality in matters concerning personal liberty and privacy.

Justice Kumar emphasised that “constitutional morality ought to take precedence over societal norms,” quoting the Supreme Court's stance.

The court also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal & Ors., emphasising the importance of upholding constitutional principles of personal liberty and privacy, which may sometimes conflict with traditional notions of social morality.

The court further observed, while the victim's admission of engaging in an extramarital relationship raises concerns, it does not necessarily constitute offences under Sections 494 (Bigamy) and 497 (Adultery) IPC. The court emphasised the need to distinguish between moral considerations and legal ramifications, noting that the mere existence of a live-in relationship does not automatically imply criminality under these sections.

The court further addressed Section 497 of the IPC, which previously criminalised adultery. It stated, “Exception was adultery under Section 497 IPC, which has already been struck down,”  citing Supreme Court’s ruling in Joseph Shine Vs. Union of India (2019), striking down Section 497, a pivotal development in understanding the legal framework surrounding marital relationships.

Concluding the judgment, the court stated, “Unless marriage is pleaded and proven, only relationships akin to marriage, such as live-in relationships, would not fall under the purview of Section 494 of the IPC.”

Ultimately, the court dismissed the applicant’s plea, finding no merit in the plea.

 

Cause Title: Yadam vs State of Rajasthan [CRLMA 358 of 2022]