Madhya Pradesh High Court recently termed the bane of live-in-relationship as a by-product of the Constitutional guarantee as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also noted that live-in relationships are promoting ‘promiscuity’ and ‘lascivious behavior’, giving further rise to sexual offences.
“Those who wanted to exploit this freedom are quick to embrace it but are totally ignorant that it has its own limitations, and does not confer any right on any of the partners to such relationship,” said Justice Subodh Abhyankar.
The bench rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a 25 year old man accused of raping a woman while being in a live-in-relationship with her. She has also alleged that she underwent multiple forced abortions.
Case Background
The prosecutrix filed a complaint against the applicant wherein she alleged that she was friends with the applicant. He allegedly invited her to his room one day and offered cold drink. The victim complained that after drinking the cold drink, she fell unconscious after which he committed rape on her and recorded the incident too.
In the complaint, it was alleged that he kept raping her on different occasions by blackmailing her that he would make this video viral. She also alleged that she got pregnant a couple of times and aborted under the pressure of the accused.
A few days later, the father of the victim engaged her to someone else. The accused started threatening her, her parents, her uncle, her fiancé and his family too by sending them messages and photographs. He also threatened them to release the video and make it viral over the internet.
An FIR was registered against him under Section 376(2)(N), Section 328, Section 313, Section 506 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the applicant moved High Court with an anticipatory bail plea.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Observations
Taking note of the submissions and documents submitted by the applicant, the High Court bench noted that the two were staying in a live-in relationship. During that time, the prosecutrix got pregnant more than a couple of times and was allegedly forced to terminate her pregnancy.
“This court is forced to observe that the bane of live-in-relationship is a by-product of Constitutional guarantee as provided under Art.21 of the Constitution, engulfing the ethos of Indian society, and promoting promiscuity and lascivious behavior, giving further rise to sexual offences. Those who wanted to exploit this freedom are quick to embrace it but are totally ignorant that it has its own limitations, and does not confer any right on any of the partners to such relationship. The applicant appears to have fallen into this trap and portraying himself as a victim, has assumed that once he has a relationship with the prosecutrix, he can also force himself upon her for all the time to come, having her various photographs and video clips etc,” the bench noted.
