Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court has recently issued a noteworthy ruling, asserting that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults who are already married, albeit to different partners, is not a criminal offense, despite potential social disapproval. In a judgment delivered on September 13, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized the distinction between societal moral judgments and legal criminal wrongdoing.

Justice Sharma pointed out that moral objections from society and legal criminal violations are separate matters, and although some individuals may criticize live-in relationships between married individuals, many others may not find them objectionable. The court firmly stated that legal enforcement of moral values has not been legislated against and should not be the subject of any legal judgment.

The High Court noted, "Live-in relationship between two consenting married adults, who are married to different partners, has not been made criminal or legislated against. While concluding that legal enforcement of morals has not been legislated against, and cannot be a subject matter of any legal morality preached through a judgment".

Furthermore, the court underlined that judges, while they may hold personal opinions about such relationships, should not attribute criminality to these acts based on their own moral perspectives. It stressed that attaching criminality to acts not legislated against on the grounds of perceived morality is a hazardous proposition, as judges' personal moral notions should not be imposed on any party.

In a pertinent aspect of the ruling, the court specified that when a woman is not legally eligible to marry someone due to her existing marriage to another person, she cannot claim rape by asserting that she was induced into a sexual relationship under the false pretext of marriage. Section 376 of the IPC's protection and remedies cannot be extended to a victim who was not legally entitled to marry the person she was in a sexual relationship with, court said.

The court's decision upholds the principle that individual adults are free to make decisions, even if those decisions do not conform to societal norms or expectations. However, the court emphasized that individuals in such relationships must be prepared to face the potential consequences of their choices.

These observations were made in response to a plea filed by a man seeking the quashing of a first information report (FIR) registered against him for allegedly raping a woman under the false pretext of marriage during what was described as a live-in relationship, even though both parties were already married.

The court also addressed the derogatory language used by the petitioner against the woman in his plea and written submission, stressing that such submissions fall short of the decency expected in legal proceedings. The court firmly rejected any gender-based distinctions, stating that both male and female partners should be held to the same standard.

Regarding the issue of both parties being married to others while engaging in a live-in relationship, the court reiterated that while an act may be socially unacceptable, it is not necessarily a crime. The court emphasized that courts of law should not serve as moral authorities but should instead focus on evaluating the criminal aspects of each case.

In conclusion, the court's ruling affirms the rights of women to make choices as equals and calls for these choices to be respected, regardless of traditional notions of women bearing the burden of societal morality. The court ultimately granted the man's plea to quash the FIR, highlighting that the complainant could not claim inducement into a sexual relationship under the pretext of marriage due to her existing marriage, and thus, there was no valid basis for her claim.

Case Title: S. RAJADURAI Vs. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR