The Allahabad High Court recently observed that it is difficult for a woman to live alone after a live-in relationship comes to an end, as Indian society at large does not accept and recognize such relationships [Aditya Raj Verma v. State].
The Court was hearing a bail application of a man who was arrested for not fulfilling his promise to marry the woman, his live-in partner.
While granting bail to the man, Justice Siddharth noted that the woman in a live-in relationship is left with no option but to lodge a case against her live-in partner in such a situation.
“…this is one case where the disastrous consequences of live-in relationship has come on the scene. It is difficult for a woman to live alone after breaking of live-in relationship. The Indian Society at large does not recognizes such relation-ship as acceptable. The woman therefore is left with no option but to lodge first information report against her live-in partner, like in present case,” the order said.
As per the prosecution, the couple were in a live-in relationship for over a year. The woman was earlier married to another man, with whom she had two sons. Later, she became pregnant on account of sexual relations she had with the accused during the live-in relationship. However, the accused refused to marry her.
The woman alleged that the accused then sent obscene photographs of her to her ex-husband, after which he also refused to live with her.
She thus lodged a complaint on the basis of which an FIR under Sections 376 (rape) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered against the accused.
Counsel for the accused submitted that the woman is a major and she willingly entered into a live-in relationship with the accused. She was capable in understanding the consequence of such relationship and there is no allegation that the relationship started with the promise of marriage, he added.
It was further argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case, has been in jail since November 22 last year and has no criminal history to his credit.
Given the nature of the offence, the evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the counsel for the parties, the one-sided investigation by the police and other grounds, the Court granted bail to the man.
The accused was represented by Advocates Anuj Srivastava and Tanmay Sadh.