Live-in Relationship Promoting Promiscuity, A By-Product Of Article 21; MP High Court

Last week, the Indore Bench of MP High Court observed that live-in relationships cause a rise in the number of sexual offenses. It promotes promiscuity and lewd behavior said in Abhishek v State of Madhya Pradesh.

It was remarked by Justice Subodh Abhyankar that the bane of live-in-relationships was a by-product of the Constitutional guarantee under Article 21.

Taking note of the spurt of such offenses in recent times arising out of live-in-relationship, this court is forced to observe that the bane of live-in-relationship is a by-product of Constitutional guarantee as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution, engulfing the ethos of Indian society, and promoting promiscuity and lascivious behavior, giving further rise to sexual offenses,” the Court said.

This was observed while an anticipatory bail application by a rape accused was being heard. The prosecutrix and the applicant were friends as per the FIR. They met for the purpose of studying however, her drink was spiked and rape was committed.

After the incident took place, the victim was threatened. She was threatened with the circulation of her private photos and videos and hence, was raped again. The prosecutrix even became pregnant twice. It was however terminated due to the pressure of the applicant.

When the prosecutrix’s father planned for her to marry another woman, she began harassing her parents, family, and fiancé, threatening them with the release of her photographs.

However, the accused claimed that the family was out to harass him by filing this false report. He claimed that the two had lived together for 4-5 years and that the abortions were carried out with the survivor’s permission.

As a result, he argued that his incarceration was unnecessary. A previous first information report (FIR) filed by the prosecutrix for the offenses of criminal intimidation and committing obscene actions was also brought to the Court’s attention.

With reference to this FIR, the applicant said that if it had been a rape case, the prosecutrix would not have failed to mention it in the previous FIR.

The Court began by emphasizing that this was not a case of rape under the guise of marriage, but rather one in which the prosecutrix was raped after the applicant poisoned her cold drink and took advantage of her.

The Court also noted that the case diary and various documents filed by the accused revealed that the prosecutrix and the accused had been in a live-in relationship for a long time and that during that time, the prosecutrix became pregnant more than once and had it terminated, allegedly under the pressure of the current applicant.

As a result, relations between them became strained, and the prosecutrix became engaged with someone else, much to the applicant’s dismay, the Court remarked. The applicant, a jilted lover, couldn’t take it when the prosecutrix became engaged to someone else and blackmailed her, including sending video footage to her in-laws threatening suicide. This behavior was handled very seriously.

In the considered opinion of this court, such act of the applicant needs to be viewed seriously as how much stress his acts must have caused to the prosecutrix, her family members as also other persons is not difficult to comprehend”, remarked Justice Abhyankar.

The Court observed that individuals who wanted to take advantage of the freedom were ready to embrace it, but were unaware of its restrictions when discussing the “bane” of live-in relationships. He claims that it does not give any of the relationship’s partners any rights.

The applicant appears to have fallen into this trap,” said the Court explained that he assumed that once he established a relationship with the prosecutrix, he would be able to impose himself on her indefinitely.

The prosecutrix’s previous FIR, according to the Court, revealed that she tried her hardest to avoid the applicant, but he persisted in his requests.

As a result, the plea for anticipatory bail was denied, citing the need for custodial interrogation of the applicant. The petitioner was represented by Advocate Yogesh Kumar Gupta, and the respondents were represented by Government Advocate Amit Singh Sisodiya and Advocate OP Solanki.

🤞 Don’t miss any updates !

Subscribe to our email and newsletter, to get notified every time we upload something new for you

Your details with us are confidential, we promise!


🤞 Don’t miss any updates !

Subscribe to our email and newsletter, to get notified every time we upload something new for you

Your details with us are confidential, we promise!

Leave a Reply