‘Men Embrace Modernity, Then Question Women’s Character’: Madras High Court on Live-In Relationships

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently observed that adult women in live-in relationships are among the most legally vulnerable sections in India. Court warned that such relationships leave women exposed to social stigma, emotional trauma and abandonment, while offering them none of the protections available to minors under POCSO or to married women under maintenance and matrimonial laws.

The bench of Justice S. Srimathy further flagged how men often embrace “modernity” while entering live-in relationships, only to later turn around and question the woman’s character once disputes arise. It noted that after benefiting from physical intimacy, men frequently disengage by branding women as immoral, thereby weaponising societal notions of character against them and leaving women trapped “in a web of modernity and culture".

Stressing that the law cannot remain indifferent to such realities, court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused of having sexual relations with a woman on the promise of marriage and later backing out, while also directing the police to invoke the newly introduced offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which specifically criminalises sexual intercourse by deceitful promise of marriage.

The single judge bench dismissed the criminal original petition filed by Prabhakaran, who apprehended arrest in a 2024 case registered by the All Women Police Station, Manaparai, Trichy district, for offences under Sections 417, 420 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 351(2) of the BNS.

A complaint was lodged by a woman nurse, who alleged that she had been in a relationship with the petitioner since their school days. According to her, the relationship deepened over the years and, during 2019, the petitioner allegedly engaged in repeated sexual relations with her while assuring that he would marry her. The complainant stated that she consented to the relationship solely on the strength of this assurance, even though the petitioner’s family was opposed to the alliance.

In August 2024, the couple allegedly left their respective homes and travelled to Trichy with the intention of solemnising their marriage. They stayed together in a rented house. However, matters took a turn when the complainant’s father filed a missing complaint. The following day, the petitioner allegedly dropped her back home, claiming he was under pressure from his family. Both were subsequently summoned to the police station, where the petitioner admitted to the physical relationship and submitted a written statement promising to marry her after completing a railway recruitment examination.

The complainant further alleged that relatives of the petitioner threatened both of them at the police station, warning of serious consequences if they proceeded with the inter-caste marriage.

Opposing the anticipatory bail plea, the prosecution argued that the allegations disclosed a clear case of cheating and criminal intimidation arising out of a false promise of marriage. The petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the complaint was false and motivated. He claimed that he had discontinued the relationship much earlier after learning about the complainant’s alleged conduct and stated that he was financially dependent on his parents, unemployed, and not in a position to marry.

During the hearing, court initially explored the possibility of settlement. The matter was referred to mediation, and interim protection from arrest was granted. However, mediation failed. Court also directed the petitioner to file an affidavit expressing his willingness to marry the complainant, but he failed to do so.

In a detailed order, Justice Srimathy examined the scope of Section 69 of the BNS, which criminalises sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling it. Court observed that while such cases were earlier dealt with under provisions relating to rape or cheating under the IPC, the new law recognises false promise of marriage as a distinct offence.

Applying the provision to the facts, court noted that the petitioner admittedly had a relationship with the complainant on the assurance of marriage and was now refusing to marry her after having sexual relations. It held that prima facie ingredients of Section 69 were made out and directed the police to add the provision to the case.

Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the need for custodial interrogation, court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail at this stage and dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Prabhakaran vs The State

Bench: Justice S Srimathy