Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has recently observed that a relationship between two individuals does not justify sexual assault by one partner on another.

" Complainant has clearly alleged that, the Petitioner had established sexual intercourse forcibly with her and without her consent, despite a relationship. A relationship between two adult individuals does not justify sexual assault by one on his partner," the court said. 

The division bench of the high court comprising Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale was hearing a petition filed by a man seeking the quashing of a rape case filed against him.

According to the complainant, who is a divorcee living with a 4-year-old child, the accused moved next door to her residence. Subsequently, they began chatting, during which the complainant alleged that the accused had forced sexual relations with her on two occasions, promising to marry her.

Furthermore, she alleged that the man threatened to commit suicide if she refused to have sexual intercourse with him.

She also claimed that when she approached his family regarding marriage, they abused her and stated that they belonged to different religions.

Additionally, she alleged that the accused had borrowed money from her and never returned it.

The counsel appearing for the accused argued that there was a delay of 13 months in filing the FIR and that the marriage was unlikely as the complainant was a Muslim and the accused was a Hindu.

The bench noted that the relationship may have been consensual in the beginning, but when one partner shows unwillingness, the character of consent changes. 

"Insofar as the defense in the Petition that, there was a consensual relationship between the parties is concerned, it is trite that a relationship may be consensual at the beginning but the same state may not  remain so for all time to come. Whenever one of the partners show their unwillingness to indulge in a sexual relationship, the character of the relationship as ‘consensual’ ceases to exist. The allegations in the present F.I.R. do not demonstrate a continuous consent on the part of the complainant," the order reads. 

Therefore, the high court refused to quash the FIR filed against the man.