Long Cohabitation Implies Couple's Consent To Continue Live-in Relationship Without Marriage : Supreme Court

While quashing a case against a man accused of raping a woman on the false promise of marriage, the Supreme Court observed that when a couple continues their live-in relationship for a long period, there is a presumption that they did not want marriage.

When two adults reside together as a live-in couple for many years, an allegation that the relationship was entered into on the basis of a false promise of marriage is untenable, the Court added.

In this case, the couple lived together for over two years.  On November 19, 2023, they also executed a settlement deed, affirming their love for each other and stating that they will get married. The FIR was lodged on November 23, 2023, alleging that the man had forcible sex with the woman on November 18, 2023.

After the Uttarakhand High Court refused to quash the FIR, the man approached the Supreme Court.  The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra noted that there was no allegation in the FIR that physical relationship was established only because there was a promise of marriage.

"Besides, physical relationship continued for over two years without a complaint in between. In such circumstances, a presumption would arise of there being a valid consent for initiating and maintaining the physical relationship that spanned over two years," the Court said.

The Court also found the argument that the relationship was based on promise to marry untenable.

“In our view, 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. Therefore, the allegation that such relationship was entered because there was a promise of marriage is in the circumstances unworthy of acceptance, particularly, when there is no allegation that such physical relationship would not have been established had there been no promise to marry.”, the Court observed.

"Moreover, in a long drawn live-in relationship, occasions may arise where parties in that relationship express their desire or wish to formalize the same by a seal of marriage, but that expression of desire, or wish, by itself would not be indicative of relationship being a consequence of that expression of desire or wish."

Financial Freedom Of Women Leading To Proliferation Of Live-In Relationships; Courts must not take pedantic approach

The Court further observed :

“A decade or two earlier, live-in relationships might not have been common. But now more and more women are financially independent and have the capacity to take conscious decision of charting their life on their own terms. This financial freedom, inter alia, has led to proliferation of such live-in relationships. Therefore, when a matter of this nature comes to a court, it must not adopt a pedantic approach rather the Court may, based on the length of such relationship and conduct of the parties, presume implied consent of the parties to be in such a relationship regardless of their desire or a wish to convert it into a marital bond.”, the Court noted.

“In that view of the matter, in our considered view, the long-drawn relationship of the appellant and the second respondent including the circumstance of their living together and cohabiting with each other, that too, in a separate rented accommodation, would give rise to a presumption that their relationship was based on a valid consent.”, the court concluded.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, as the court deemed that the continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

Case Title: RAVISH SINGH RANA VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 540

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Gautam Barnwal, Adv. Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nishant Gill, Adv. Mr. Saksham Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aakash, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Mr. Ajay Bahuguna, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Yadav, Adv. Mr. Garvesh Kabra,AOR Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv.