The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed against a Madhya Pradesh high court order of April 18, quashing a rape case against a man who was accused for having sexual relationship with a woman allegedly on the false pretext of marriage.
The Supreme Court, which was hearing an appeal filed against a Madhya Pradesh high court order of April 18, stated that labelling every failed relationship, where physical relationships are often established upon consent, as a rape case once it turns bitter can potentially harm the genuine cases of sexual assault.
The apex court further explained that the couples choosing to have a consensual and continued physical relationship should also be ready to face the eventuality of not getting married to each other.
“Either you live by more conventional standards or choose your own ways of living. In metropolitan towns, many young people are choosing the latter. So far as it is consensual and between adults, there is no problem. But when you choose to live by your own standards, you should also be ready to face all the possible consequences,” a bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia remarked.
The honourable court was hearing an appeal filed against a Madhya Pradesh high court order of April 18, quashing a rape case against a man who was accused for having sexual relationship with a woman allegedly on the false pretext of marriage.
Upholding the Madhya Pradesh HC's order, the Supreme Court bench took into congnisance the fact that the couple in question was together for five years before the woman decided to register a first information report (FIR) against the man at a police station in Gwalior.
“How is it rape? This is an instance of a relationship of five years with physical relations which has now gone sour... It is these types of cases which create problems for the genuine cases… make the genuine cases problematic for the courts to deal with,” the bench told the lawyer appearing for the woman.
Responding the SC bench's questions, the lawyer tried justifying the case as rape since the man refused to marry her despite having a physical relationship with her for almost five years.
Dismissing the lawyer's arguement, the bench responded, “So what? So, in every case, where physical relationships continue for a long time and the relationship does not end up in a marriage, should it be called a rape? That cannot be.”