Educated and independent adults must be aware of the inherent uncertainties attached to relationships, the Court said.
According to a recent observation by the Delhi High Court, the legal system should not be utilized to penalize individuals for consensual relationships that do not result in marriage. The court emphasized that a failed romantic connection between adults who both agreed to the partnership does not constitute a criminal offense.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma remarked that the judiciary must handle these instances with a high degree of sensitivity and caution. She noted that the law must respect individual autonomy and the freedom of choice, rather than turning the collapse of a voluntary relationship into a matter for criminal prosecution.
“An educated and independent adult, upon entering into a consensual relationship, must also recognise that the law cannot be invoked to criminalise the mere failure of a relationship. The dissolution of a relationship, by itself, does not give rise to criminal liability. Such matters must be approached with sensitivity, restraint, and due respect for the autonomy and choices of both individuals involved,” the Court said.
The bench further remarked that a mature, educated individual who chooses to engage in a romantic partnership is expected to understand the unpredictable nature of such commitments. The court underscored that when adults enter these unions of their own volition, they must recognize that personal relationships carry no absolute guarantee of a specific outcome or lifelong permanence.
“It is neither inevitable nor assured that every romantic relationship will result in marriage. Relationships may end for a variety of personal, practical, or circumstantial reasons, including incompatibility or change in individual priorities.”
The Court provided these insights while dismissing a criminal case involving charges of sexual assault and violations of the SC/ST Act against a Delhi academic. The litigation stemmed from a 2023 complaint where the individual was accused of rape and caste-related insults following the conclusion of a long-term partnership.
However, after a thorough review of digital evidence—including WhatsApp transcripts and various records—the bench determined that the interaction was entirely voluntary. The Court noted that the legal machinery was only triggered after the relationship deteriorated. Furthermore, the judiciary found no substantive evidence to support the claim that the accused had secured the woman’s consent through a deceptive or fraudulent promise of marriage.
“In the present matter, the prosecutrix has levelled allegations against the petitioner, attracting the provisions of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Such allegations, by their very nature, are grave and carry serious consequences, with the potential to tarnish not only the reputation of the accused but also that of his family,” the Court added.
Legal representation in this matter included Advocates Bajinder Singh and Subhash Choudhary, who argued on behalf of the petitioner. The prosecution’s case for the Delhi Police was managed by Additional Public Prosecutor Manoj Pant, while Advocates Tara Narula and Shivangi Sharma served as counsel for the complainant.