In a significant legal observation, the Supreme Court of India recently clarified that physical intimacy shared between two consenting adults during a relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as rape simply because the relationship subsequently turned sour. The ruling came as the apex court granted relief to a man who had been accused of rape and cheating by a former partner. The bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, emphasized that criminal law is not a tool to be used for settling personal grievances or exacting revenge against former partners.
The case involved a man who was already married and had two children. He had lived with the complainant, who is a divorcee, between 1996 and 2003, following an alleged temple marriage in Mysore. The woman had lodged an FIR alleging that she was deceived into a physical relationship under the false pretense of marriage. After failing to secure relief from the Kerala High Court, the man approached the Supreme Court to challenge the charges. The apex court noted that the woman was aware of the man’s pre-existing marriage within a few months of living with him, as she had been informed by his brother.
Justice Nagarathna, writing for the bench, stated that the court is not entrusted to pass moral judgments on the personal decisions of individuals, whether those decisions are prudent or reckless. The bench highlighted that while individuals have autonomy, personal choices carry consequences that do not automatically transform into criminal offenses requiring state intervention. The court remarked, “Criminal law cannot be used as munitions to settle personal scores, exact revenge or coerce an individual to act in any particular way.”
Upon reviewing the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet, the Supreme Court found the essential ingredients of the charges under Sections 376, 420, 493, 494, and 495 of the IPC to be entirely absent. The bench stated that it was “incredulous” that the woman continued to believe she was the man’s legal wife solely on the basis of alleged oral assurances, despite being aware of his marital status early on. The court characterized the situation as a consensual relationship that was perhaps obscured by a marriage-like facade to avoid societal scrutiny.
The judiciary expressed concern over a growing trend where individuals, following the breakdown of a consensual relationship, retrospectively comb through past events to frame them as sexual violence or assault. The court warned that such actions not only negate the actual crime of rape—which it termed a heinous offence requiring real coercion or sexual violence—but also subject the accused to irreparable stigma and harassment. It argued that labeling every soured relationship as a criminal act dilutes the gravity of genuine sexual assault cases.
The Supreme Court bench further noted that treating such cases as non-consensual denudes the man of all agency, as a previous consensual act could theoretically bind him to a relationship forever under the threat of future litigation. The judges asserted that courts must examine the entirety of a relationship holistically rather than focusing exclusively on its acrimonious conclusion. By allowing the appeal, the court reiterated that the law must be used to address genuine injustices rather than being exploited as a weapon in personal disputes.
Comments