Supreme Court प्रश्न उठाता है सहमति वाले Live‑in Relationship की कानूनी स्थिति पर यौन हमला मामले में

<h2>Overview</h2> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — apex judicial body responsible for interpreting the Constitution and ensuring rule of law (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> on <strong>27 April 2026</strong> heard a petition filed by a woman challenging a decision of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Madhya Pradesh High Court — the highest judicial authority in the state of Madhya Pradesh, subordinate to the Supreme Court (GS2: Polity)">Madhya Pradesh High Court</span>. The High Court had set aside a <span class="key-term" data-definition="First Information Report (FIR) — a written document prepared by police when they receive information about a cognizable offence; initiates criminal investigation (GS2: Polity)">FIR</span> lodged against the woman’s former partner for alleged <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sexual assault — non-consensual sexual act, punishable under Indian Penal Code; relevant to criminal law and women's safety (GS2: Polity)">sexual assault</span> based on a false promise of marriage. The case raises critical questions about the legal treatment of consensual <span class="key-term" data-definition="Live-in relationship — a cohabitation arrangement between two individuals without formal marriage, increasingly examined under Indian law for rights and protections (GS2: Polity)">live-in relationships</span> in India.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The bench comprised <strong>Justice B.V. Nagarathna</strong> and <strong>Justice Ujjal Bhuyan</strong>, who probed the factual matrix of the relationship, noting that the woman lived with the man and had a child from him.</li> <li>The Supreme Court questioned whether the alleged assault could be dismissed merely because the parties were in a consensual relationship.</li> <li>The Court emphasized the need to balance individual autonomy with protection against exploitation, especially when promises of marriage are used to coerce sexual compliance.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <ul> <li>The FIR was originally filed under sections of the Indian Penal Code dealing with rape and cheating.</li> <li>The High Court’s order to quash the FIR was based on the argument that the relationship was consensual, thereby negating criminal liability.</li> <li>The petitioner contended that consent obtained through a false promise of marriage is vitiated, rendering the act non‑consensual.</li> </ul> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>This case touches upon several GS topics:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Polity (GS2)</strong>: Interpretation of personal laws, the role of the judiciary in safeguarding individual rights, and the evolving jurisprudence on gender justice.</li> <li><strong>Society (GS1)</strong>: Changing social norms around marriage, cohabitation, and the legal recognition of live‑in relationships.</li> <li><strong>Ethics (GS4)</strong>: Balancing personal liberty with protection against exploitation; the ethical dimensions of promises made