Educated and independent adults must be aware of the inherent uncertainties attached to relationships, the Court said.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the criminal justice system cannot be exploited as a means of punishment when consensual relationships do not lead to marriage. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma underscored that the breakdown of a romantic bond between adults is not a crime. She maintained that the courts must exercise restraint, ensuring that individual autonomy and the freedom to choose are not overshadowed by the criminalization of failed voluntary unions.
“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 Court added that the unpredictable nature of romantic ties should be self-evident to mature and educated individuals. According to Justice Sharma, those who enter into relationships of their own volition must understand that such personal connections are devoid of any inherent legal promise regarding their longevity or eventual culmination in marriage.
“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 clarifications while quashing a criminal case against a Delhi academic involving charges of rape and caste-related insults. Originating from a 2023 complaint filed after a long-term partnership ended, the case was scrutinized through the lens of digital evidence. The bench found that the relationship was entirely voluntary, concluding that the criminal charges were a delayed reaction to the relationship souring rather than the result of a fraudulent promise of marriage used to secure consent.
“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.
Advocates Bajinder Singh and Subhash Choudhary served as counsel for the petitioner. The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Manoj Pant, and the complainant’s interests were managed by Advocates Tara Narula and Shivangi Sharma.