The evolving norms of relationships, especially live-in arrangements, have triggered new legal questions in the domain of criminal law—particularly in relation to the offence of rape. While rape laws are designed to protect bodily integrity and consent, a recurring concern is whether these provisions are being misapplied in cases where consensual adult relationships turn sour due to emotional disputes, such as the refusal to marry.
The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 INSC 635) has reignited this debate by quashing a rape case filed after years of a consensual live-in relationship, emphasizing the distinction between a false promise and breach of promise of marriage.
This article critically analyses the judgment and its implications for the law on consent, false promise of marriage, and live-in arrangements.
Factual Background of the Case
The appellant, Ravish Singh Rana, approached the Supreme Court seeking quashing of an FIR filed by a woman with whom he had been in a live-in relationship for over two years. The relationship began in February 2021 following a social media interaction and evolved into a cohabiting partnership in a rented accommodation.
The woman alleged that the appellant:
- Initiated and maintained physical relations with her on the assurance of marriage;
- Abused and assaulted her occasionally;
- Refused to marry her despite repeated insistence;
- Forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse with her on 18 November 2023.
The very next day, both parties signed a written settlement on 19 November 2023 acknowledging their relationship, expressing mutual love, and committing to register their marriage. However, the woman filed the FIR on 23 November 2023 under Sections 376, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Sections 64, 115, 352 and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
The Uttarakhand High Court refused to quash the proceedings. The appellant then moved the Supreme Court.
Issue
- Can a woman claim rape under Section 376 IPC (Section 64 BNS) after a prolonged live-in relationship, on the ground that the man failed to fulfill a promise of marriage?
The Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR, providing a detailed analysis rooted in legal precedent and the facts at hand.
1. Presumption of Consent in Long-Term Live-In
The Court emphasised that when two adults live together for years and engage in physical intimacy, there is a natural presumption of consent. It rejected the notion that such a relationship could be retroactively criminalised based on an unfulfilled promise of marriage.
“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.”
2. Distinction Between False Promise and Breach
Citing Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 9 SCC 608], the Court reiterated the need to differentiate between:
- A false promise of marriage made with no intention of fulfillment (which may vitiate consent), and
- A mere breach of promise due to later developments (which does not).
“To establish a false promise, it would have to be demonstrated that the maker of the promise had no intention of upholding his word at the time of making the promise.”
3. Timing and Conduct as Evidentiary Clues
The Supreme Court noted that the woman signed a written agreement the very next day (19.11.2023), affirming their love and intent to marry—contradicting her claim of rape the day prior.
This inconsistency weakened her credibility and indicated that the FIR may have been motivated by malice or emotional retaliation.
4. Reliance on Earlier Judgments
The Court relied on:
- Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana [(2013) 7 SCC 675], which held that courts must evaluate if the accused had a bona fide intent to marry or merely exploited the woman.
- Sonu @ Subash Kumar v. State of U.P. [(2021) 18 SCC 517], where a consensual relationship followed by a refusal to marry was not treated as rape.
Key Observations
1) Consent cannot be weaponised retroactively
Courts must protect individuals from false and vindictive prosecutions that arise from soured personal relationships, especially those voluntarily entered into by adults.
2) Changing Dynamics of Modern Relationships
The Court acknowledged the societal shift where live-in relationships have become more common due to changing values and economic independence, especially among women.
“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 reflects a more progressive judicial outlook that accords respect to adult autonomy, modern lifestyle choices, and recognises mutual consent in non-marital cohabitation
3) Need for Gender-Neutral Evaluation
While protection from coercive sex is vital, courts must ensure due process and not presume guilt solely based on the man’s refusal to marry.
Implications of the Judgment
For Law Enforcement:
Police must conduct a prima facie assessment of facts, including timelines and documented agreements, before registering FIRs in such cases.
For Courts:
Courts are now urged to consider:
- The duration and nature of the relationship,
- Timing of allegations,
- Evidence of abuse or lack thereof,
- Consistency of the complainant’s conduct.
For Society:
This judgment may help curb misuse of rape laws in domestic or failed relationship disputes, while still upholding the rights of genuine victims.
Critical Analysis
A Balanced Judicial Approach
The Supreme Court’s ruling strikes a delicate balance between two significant concerns:
- Protecting genuine victims who may have been deceived into sexual relationships under false pretenses of marriage; and
- Preventing misuse of the criminal justice system against individuals who were part of a consensual relationship that later soured.
By emphasising adult autonomy and recognising the legitimacy of long-term live-in relationships, the Court offers a pragmatic lens for interpreting consent. However, its strong reliance on the presumption of consent in such relationships could make it more difficult for complainants to prove coercion, particularly in situations involving emotional vulnerability, economic dependence, or power asymmetries.
Grey Areas in Legal Interpretation
While the Court rightly insists that intention to deceive must exist at the time the promise of marriage is made, establishing this intent remains a complex evidentiary challenge. A man may have made the promise sincerely, but later abandons the idea of marriage due to familial opposition, societal pressures, or differences in caste or religion. Yet, during this period, he continues the physical relationship, possibly aware that the marriage will never materialise.
Such borderline cases blur the line between breach and deceit, raising concerns about whether the law, as it stands, adequately addresses constructive deception or wilful silence. Without legal evolution to recognise such nuances, victims in these scenarios may find themselves without remedy, despite suffering emotional or psychological harm.
Need for a Codified Legal Framework
India currently lacks a dedicated legal framework for live-in relationships. A codified law could:
- Define the rights and obligations of partners
- Offer civil remedies such as maintenance or compensation
- Distinguish genuine consensual relationships from exploitative ones
There is a clear need for a codified legal framework to regulate live-in relationships in India.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s verdict in Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand clarifies that a woman cannot automatically claim rape years after a consensual live-in relationship, simply due to the man’s refusal to marry—unless there is clear evidence of a false promise made with deceptive intent.
This ruling not only reinforces the need for evidence-based prosecution in rape cases involving live-in relationships but also upholds the constitutional principles of liberty, equality, and presumption of innocence.