The Allahabad High Court recently held that refusing to marry after a consensual live-in relationship which spanned over a period of four years shall not amount to cognizable offence, including rape.
Consult Verified Legal Experts
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • RERA Matters
- • Legal Notice
- • Succession Issue
Experience
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Statutory Compliances
Experience
- • Property Matter
- • Corporate Issues
- • Startup Compliances
Experience
- • Cyber Crime
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
Experience
- • Audits
- • Trademark & other IP
- • Company Registration
Experience
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
- • Cyber Crime
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
- • RERA Matters
- • Consumer Protection
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • RERA Matters
- • Case Transfer Matters
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
- • Cyber Crime
- • Legal Notice
- • Succession Issue
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Bail Matter
Experience
- • Consumer Protection
- • Legal Notice
- • Succession Issue
Experience
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Property Matter
- • Corporate Issues
Experience
- • RERA Matters
- • Case Transfer Matters
- • Cyber Crime
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Statutory Compliances
Experience
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Bail Matter
Experience
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Property Matter
- • Corporate Issues
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Statutory Compliances
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Property Matter
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Property Matter
Experience
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Property Matter
- • Corporate Issues
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Rape & POCSO
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Corporate Issues
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Audits
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Statutory Compliances
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Bail Matter
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Rape & POCSO
Experience
- • Matrimonial Disputes
- • Legal Notice
- • Succession Issue
Experience
- • Case Transfer Matters
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
Experience
- • Cyber Crime
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Bail Matter
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Bail Matter
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Statutory Compliances
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • RERA Matters
Experience
- • Employment Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Cyber Crime
Experience
- • Employment Matters
- • Insurance Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
Experience
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Employment Matters
- • Insurance Matters
Experience
- • Bail Matter
Experience
- • Rape & POCSO
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
Experience
- • Adoption & Custody
Experience
- • Court Marriage
Experience
- • RERA Matters
- • Case Transfer Matters
- • Cyber Crime
Experience
- • Rape & POCSO
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
Experience
- • Rape & POCSO
Experience
- • Adoption & Custody
Experience
- • Property Matter
Experience
- • Property Matter
Experience
- • Adoption & Custody
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Case Transfer Matters
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
Experience
- • Employment Matters
- • Insurance Matters
- • RERA Matters
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Cyber Crime
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Anticipatory Bail
Experience
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Bail Matter
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Employment Matters
- • Company Registration
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Cyber Crime
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Employment Matters
- • Insurance Matters
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Matrimonial Disputes
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Audits
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
The Allahabad High Court, in a recent hearing, has held that refusing to marry after a consensual live-in relationship which spanned over a period of four years shall not amount to cognizable offence, including rape. The decision passed in the case of Km. Neha @ Neha Anuragi v. State of U.P. and Another (Criminal Revision No. 4743 of 2024), helps clarify an often-contested issue regarding the promise of marriage as well as criminal liability.
Background of the Case
A woman, challenged the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahoba, passed on the 17th August 2024, where her complaint against her live-in partner was dismissed. She filed that the man refused to her after years of cohabitation which shall amount to deception and rape.
Observation by the Court
- Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, who presided over the case, pointed out that when two able-minded adults voluntarily live together for several years, the law shall presume such an act to be consensual. The Court emphasised that such long-term cohabitation would reflect the conscious choice of the couple as well as their mutual agreement.
- The Court noted:-“If two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple of years and cohabit with each other, a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of its consequences.”
Submissions by the Parties
Counsel for the opposite party, the male partner, told the court that-
- The relationship between the couple was consensual as well as was known publicly, including their colleagues as well as the officials at their workplace in the Tehsil.
- At the initial stage, the parties were inclined towards marriage, however later with passing time, their disagreements led to withdrawal of the decision to marry.
- The woman approached the administrative officers regarding her grievances, however the parties later settled their dispute amicably.
While the representatives of the woman challenged the earlier dismissal, challenging that the refusal to marry after so many years of cohabitation shall amount to an offence.
Decision of the Court-
- After reviewing the facts of the case, the High Court decided that no cognisable offence could be recognised against the man. The Court affirmed that consensual long-term live-in relationships, even those which end without marriage, could not automatically be equated to rape on the basis of an unfulfilled marriage promise.
- An important distinction has been clarified in the judgement explaining the distinctions between cases where false promises of marriage are used to obtain a consent to establish sexual relationships, and such cases where the adults willingly agree to a prolonged live-in arrangement but get separated later on. Its only in the former cases, where the consent is gained by using the methods of deception, and a criminal liability arises.
Cases with a “Promise of Marriage”-
Courts in India have dealt with various such cases where rapes were alleged on the basis of a failed promise of marriage. The ruling by the Allahabad High Court ruling has narrowed down the scope of these claims, thereby providing that not every breakdown of a relationship would lead to criminal prosecution.
Conclusion
The judgment provided in the case of Km. Neha @ Neha Anuragi v. State of U.P. and Another points out the legal position of the court that consensual live-in relationships, even in case they do not result in marriage, shall not be criminalised merely on the ground that one of the partners later refused to marry. By differentiating between genuine deception and consensual cohabitation, the Court in the present case has provided a much-needed clarity to an area dealing with misuse as well as conflicting interpretations.
For further information on the Subject, or to follow similar legal news, you may follow our blog under Sharks of Law or on instagram and youtube. If you are involved in a civil or criminal case and wish to talk to a lawyer online or seek free legal counsel, you may contact us through the following information.
Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com
Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993
Adv Vipul Singh Raghuwanshi
Legal expert and contributor at Sharks of Law. Committed to providing clear and accessible legal guidance to everyone.