15 Years, A Child, Then Rape Allegation: India’s SC Flags Complex Questions of Consent in Live-in Relationship Case

The Supreme Court of India has raised serious questions over the criminalisation of long-term live-in relationships, observing that a 15-year cohabitation resulting in a child cannot, by itself, be retroactively framed as rape following a breakdown.

The observations came from Justice BV Nagarathna while hearing a petition filed by a woman who accused her former partner of rape and assault on the alleged false promise of marriage.

During the hearing, the court repeatedly underscored the centrality of consent, especially in prolonged relationships between adults. “This is a live-in relationship. She went on to have a child with the man without marriage, and now she is saying rape and assault. What is this?” Justice Nagarathna remarked, questioning the basis of criminal allegations after years of cohabitation.

The bench noted that the couple had lived together for nearly 15 years and had a child, circumstances that, in its view, pointed strongly to a consensual arrangement. “Where does the question of criminal offence arise when there is a consensual relationship?” the court asked, stressing that mutual consent is the foundation of such partnerships.

Justice Nagarathna further highlighted what she described as a recurring pattern in similar cases: “For years, they lived together. When they split up, the lady files a complaint against the man for sexual assault. These are all the vagaries of relationships outside marriage.”

At the same time, the court acknowledged that such questions often attract criticism for appearing insensitive or for veering into victim-shaming. Addressing this concern, the judge said that examining the existence of consent is not optional but essential to determine whether a criminal offence has been made out.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the woman, a widow, had entered the relationship at a young age based on a promise of marriage, and later discovered that the man was already married — a fact allegedly concealed from her. However, the court indicated that even such claims must be weighed against the nature and duration of the relationship.

“We can only sympathise with your client… She went with him and had a child and lived with him for 15 years,” the bench observed, while expressing doubt over whether criminal charges could be sustained in such circumstances.

Importantly, the court clarified that while the breakdown of a live-in relationship may give rise to civil remedies — including claims for maintenance or child support — it cannot automatically translate into criminal liability.

The case remains under consideration, with the court continuing to examine whether the woman’s consent was vitiated by deception, or whether the relationship, by its very nature and duration, reflected a voluntary and informed partnership.

The outcome is likely to have wider implications for how courts interpret consent, deception, and criminal culpability in the growing number of disputes emerging from live-in relationships in India.

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.