The Supreme Court on Monday expressed sympathy for women whose live-in partners have left them, but clarified that courts cannot intervene as ending a consensual relationship is not a criminal offence.
Case Background
Hearing a plea from a woman who had been in a live-in relationship for 15 years and had a child with her partner, who later married someone else, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan refused to allow a criminal case of sexual harassment and exploitation against the man.
The bench stated, "There was a consensual relationship and a child was born. Once he walks out, it is not a criminal offence. Where is the question of an offence when the relationship was consensual?"
No Legal Binding
The court observed that there is no legal binding in such relationships and advised people to be cautious about the uncertainties of live-in relationships. "Why did she go and live with him before marriage? They could have married. Now she is saying sexual assault," the bench told the woman's lawyer.
The woman's counsel argued that she was an 18-year-old widow when she met the man and was coerced into a physical relationship on the false promise of marriage. He also informed the bench that the man had married four times.
Court's Response
Declining to delve into the alleged misconduct, the bench said, "We can only sympathise with your client; she got fooled or whatever. She went with him, had a child, and lived with him for 15 years."
However, the court noted that the woman could seek maintenance for her eight-year-old child, as the child was born out of that relationship. When her lawyer suggested mediation for maintenance, the bench issued a notice limited to that issue.
