Prayagraj: Merely refusal to get married by a man after a consensual physical relationship for four years would not constitute a cognisable offence, the Allahabad High Court has said while rejecting the plea of his live-in partner who had accused him of rape.
"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," Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal said.
Therefore, the allegation that such a relationship was entered into because there was a promise of marriage is, in the circumstances, unworthy of acceptance, particularly when there is no allegation that such a physical relationship would not have been established had there been no promise to marry, the court said in its order dated September 8.
The counsel for the man, Sunil Choudhary, submitted that from the statement of the woman, it is clear that he and his client were in a relationship and initially they were also ready to get married.
"Subsequently, because of certain reasons, the opposite party backed out of a promise to marry the applicant and a complaint was made by the applicant to SDM and other departmental officers. Subsequently, both parties also settled their dispute before department officials. Therefore, no cognisable offence is made out against my client," he contended.
The court noted that "it is not in dispute that the applicant and opposite party (both employees of Tehsil) were in a relationship for four years and this fact was known to all employees as well as officials of Tehsil".
"Subsequently, on refusal by the opposite party to get married to the applicant, the applicant made a complaint to the SDM (sub-divisional magistrate) as well as to the police.
"However, during enquiry by the SDM and also by the police officers on the complaint, both parties settled their dispute and the applicant decided not to pursue the case," the court noted.
The plea was filed by the woman challenging the August 17, 2024, order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahoba, who had rejected her complaint.
(Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
