Madras High Court Terms Live-In Relationships as a "Cultural Shock", Observes That ‘Wife’ Status Should Be Granted Under Gandharva Marriage to Protect Women.
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madras at Madurai, Single Bench of Justice S. Srimathy declined to grant anticipatory bail to a man facing allegations that he induced a woman into a physical relationship on the assurance of marriage and later backed out, along with related claims of cheating and intimidation. The Court directed the police to additionally invoke Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which addresses sexual intercourse secured through deceitful means, including a promise to marry made without intention to honour it. In its order, the Court observed that live-in relationships, though a cultural jolt to Indian society, have become widespread, and women may enter them viewing it as “modern” but later find the arrangement offers no protection akin to marriage.
The proceedings arose from a petition seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case registered by the police for offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The prosecution case, as recorded in the order, was that the de facto complainant and the accused were known to each other from school days and later entered into a consensual relationship. According to the complaint, the relationship progressed into repeated sexual relations on the assurance of marriage. It was alleged that the accused later withdrew from the promise to marry, leading to the lodging of a complaint.
The petitioner disputed the allegations, contending that the relationship had ended earlier and that the complaint was false and motivated. He further submitted that he was unemployed, preparing for competitive examinations, and not in a position to marry. The State opposed the plea for anticipatory bail, asserting that the allegations disclosed a serious offence involving a false promise of marriage. During the pendency of proceedings, mediation was attempted at the direction of the Court, but the same did not succeed. The petitioner also failed to file an affidavit expressing willingness to marry, despite an opportunity being granted.
The Court examined the statutory framework under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and recorded that “Section 69 of BNS is enacted … for the crime of sexual intercourse by deceitful means. Particularly false promise of marriage was considered as crime.” The Court noted that unlike the earlier position under the Indian Penal Code, “under BNS is not considered as rape but it is considered as crime under false promise to marry.”
While analysing the ingredients of the offence, the Court stated that “the said provision is attracted if fraudulently by making a promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling the same has sexual intercourse with the woman.” It further recorded that in the present case, “there is sexual intercourse with promise to marry” and that the accused subsequently “is taking a stand that he cannot marry the victim.”
The Court observed: “Infact live-in relationship is a cultural shock to the Indian Society, but it is happening widely everywhere. The girls assume that they are modern and opt for live in relationship. But after some time when they realize that live-in relationship is not granting any protection as granted under marriage, the reality catches as fire and start burning them.”
The Court took note of the broader social context and observed that “a vulnerable section of women who are facing mental trauma by the concept of ‘live-in relationship’ … are falling prey to the vulnerability of the concept.” It further stated that “absolutely there is no protection at all” for such women in the absence of marriage. Recording the victim’s refusal to accept monetary compensation, the Court observed that “the said statement would exhibit the gravity of the problem.”
The Court further stated: “In live-in relationship the women ought to be protected by granting the status of “wife” under Gandharva marriage / love marriage, so that the women in live-in relationship, even if it is under turbulence, may be provided with rights as “wife”.
The Court issued a specific direction to the investigating agency, recording that “in the present case, the said Section 69 of BNS was not included, hence the respondent is directed to include the said section.”
“Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the specific overt act against the petitioner, and also since the allegation against the petitioner is promise to marry and there are prima facie evidence available, hence interrogation is necessary.” On this basis, “this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. N. Rajapanth, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. S. S. Manoj, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
For the Intervenor / De facto Complainant: Mr. A. Joel Paul Antony, Advocate
Case Title: Prabhakaran v. State
Case Number: CRL.OP(MD). No. 6147 of 2025
Bench: Justice S. Srimathy
