Allahabad High Court links live-in relationships to exploitation in “False Marriage Promise” case, says it is against middle-class norms

In a significant observation during a bail hearing, the Allahabad High Court commented on the concept of live-in relationships. The court stated that live-in goes against the “established laws” of middle-class society. The court also expressed concern over the rising number of cases involving the exploitation of women under the guise of false marriage promises.

Justice Siddhartha of the Allahabad High Court was hearing the bail petition of accused Shan-e-Alam. Alam faces charges under multiple sections of the IPC and the POCSO Act. The allegations state that Alam established a physical relationship with a young woman after promising marriage, but later refused to marry her.

Court critiques live-in relationships

While granting bail, Justice Siddhartha made strong remarks about live-in relationships. He observed that the “concept of live-in relationships is against the established laws of middle-class society.” Furthermore, the court stated that such relationships disproportionately harm women.

“The men move on and even marry after such relationships end, but women find it difficult to find a partner after a breakup,” the court noted, highlighting the perceived societal imbalance in consequences.

During the hearing, the victim’s lawyer argued that the accused’s actions had “ruined the woman’s entire life” and that “no one would be willing to marry her now.” After taking note of these arguments, the court observed that live-in relationships have had the “greatest impact on the younger generation” and that their “adverse consequences are evident in existing cases like the present one.

Previous judgements given by the courts

In 2024 in a judgement, The Bombay High Court quashed a rape FIR against a 73-year-old man, ruling his 31-year sexual relationship with the complainant was consensual. The court noted she participated willingly, knew he was married, and never alleged he promised to divorce his wife.

This aligns with established Supreme Court precedents (Deepak Gulati, Dhruvaram Sonar, Uday) and recent High Court rulings (Orissa, Kerala, Karnataka, Calcutta). Courts consistently distinguish between:

•Consensual sex between adults, even based on a genuine but later broken marriage promise, which is not rape.
•Rape via deception, occurring only if there was a deliberately false promise from the outset made solely to obtain sex.

False accusations after relationship breakdowns are seen as misuse of law, causing harassment and undermining genuine rape cases. Consent, freely given without force or initial fraud, is paramount.

News