Gujarat HC: Failure To Marry Does Not Automatically Make Consensual Live-In Relationship Rape

The Gujarat High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man accused of rape by his former live-in partner, observing that the mere failure to marry does not establish rape on the ground of a false promise of marriage.

A division bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani dismissed the woman’s appeal against the trial court’s verdict, noting that the circumstances of the relationship, the parties’ conduct and their written agreements were relevant to determining whether the relationship involved consent or coercion.

The court clarified that the legal position would be different if a promise of marriage had been made with dishonest intent from the outset, specifically to obtain a woman’s consent to sexual relations.

Written Agreements Cited In Acquittal

According to the case details, the woman was a second-year college student in Ahmedabad when she entered into a relationship with the man, which had lasted about a year.

On August 14, 2019, the two executed a written agreement concerning their decision to live together and their intention to marry in the future. The woman moved out to live with the man with the knowledge of her parents and uncle, and the couple stayed in a rented house.

On January 29, 2020, they signed another agreement to terminate their arrangement. The woman lodged a police complaint the following day, alleging rape and other offences.

The trial court acquitted the man on January 31, 2026. The woman subsequently challenged the acquittal before the High Court, which dismissed her appeal.

Promise Of Marriage Must Be Examined From The Beginning

The High Court observed that a failed relationship or a subsequent refusal to marry cannot, by itself, convert a consensual sexual relationship into rape.

For a charge based on a false promise of marriage to be sustained, it must be established that the accused had no intention of fulfilling the promise when it was made and had used it dishonestly to obtain consent for sexual relations.

The bench also noted that a desire to formalise a long-term live-in relationship through marriage does not, by itself, change the nature of the relationship. Disagreements or disputes arising between partners are not sufficient grounds to turn the matter into a criminal case without the necessary evidence.

Court Examines Consent And Circumstances Of Separation

The bench took note of the written documents stating that the couple had chosen to live together voluntarily and later decided to separate. According to the court’s observations, the documents did not record allegations of physical assault, threats or forced sexual relations.

The court considered the duration of the relationship, the couple’s cohabitation in a separate rented residence and the knowledge of the woman’s family while assessing the circumstances of the case.

It concluded that the allegations of rape based on a false promise of marriage were not sustainable in the circumstances before it.

Marriage Agreement Not Legally Enforceable

The High Court also noted that the man was 20 years old when the first agreement was executed. The document contemplated that he would marry the woman after turning 21.

However, the bench observed that such an agreement could not be treated as legally valid where it was contrary to law and public policy, nor could it be used in the manner alleged by the complainant.

The ruling reiterates that the failure of a relationship or an unfulfilled promise of marriage does not automatically establish rape. The question of criminal liability depends on the evidence, including whether the promise was dishonest from the outset and whether consent was obtained through deception.