Madras High Court says live-in relationships should be treated as Gandharva (love) marriage, woman as wife

Madras High Court

• Madras HC denies bail, orders prosecution under Section 69 BNS for deceitful sex
• Court: Live-in relationships should grant women wife status, urges legal reform
• Judgment highlights lack of legal protection for women in live-in relationships

Did our AI summary help?

The Madras High Court, while declining anticipatory bail to a man accused of deceiving a woman into a sexual relationship with assurances of marriage, made far-reaching observations on live-in relationships, women’s legal vulnerability, and the scope of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Hearing the plea of Prabhakaran, Justice S Srimathy held that sexual relations induced by repeated promises of marriage, followed by a refusal to marry, squarely fall within the offence of sexual intercourse by deceit under the new criminal law.

The court directed the police to invoke Section 69 of the BNS, which provides for imprisonment of up to 10 years along with a fine.

In strong remarks, the judge said live-in relationships should be treated as Gandharva (love) marriages and women in such arrangements ought to be accorded the status of a wife.

The court described live-in relationships as a “cultural shock” to Indian society and cautioned that couples often enter such arrangements believing them to be modern, without appreciating the legal consequences if the relationship collapses.

“After some time when they realise that the live-in relationship is not granting any protection as granted under marriage, the reality catches as fire and starts burning them,” the court observed, underlining that women are frequently left without statutory safeguards once such relationships end.

The case arose from a complaint filed in 2024 by a woman who alleged that she had known the accused since school and later entered into a romantic relationship with him. According to her, the relationship became physical after repeated assurances that he would marry her.

In August 2024, the couple reportedly left their homes with the intention of getting married but returned following police intervention after her family lodged a missing person complaint.

During the subsequent inquiry, the accused admitted to the relationship and again promised marriage, stating that he would do so after clearing the railway recruitment examinations he was preparing for.

When the relationship eventually broke down, the woman approached the police alleging cheating and criminal intimidation.

Justice Srimathy noted that although the FIR did not originally include Section 69 of the BNS, the facts disclosed warranted its application, and the State was directed to add the provision.

Opposing the allegations, the accused argued that the relationship was consensual and that he chose to end it after learning about the woman’s previous relationships.

He also cited unemployment and financial difficulties as reasons for being unable to marry her and sought anticipatory bail.

Rejecting the plea, the court said that Section 69 creates a distinct offence for sexual intercourse obtained through deceit, even in cases that do not meet the threshold of rape.

The judge pointed out that under the earlier IPC framework, such allegations were typically examined under cheating or rape provisions, but Parliament had now consciously introduced a specific offence dealing with false promises of marriage.

The court found prima facie material indicating that the accused continued the physical relationship on assurances of marriage and later reneged on those promises.

Once the accused declined marriage, the judge said, the court was “left with no option” but to permit prosecution under Section 69, particularly since the accused had admitted to the relationship during the police inquiry.

Given the seriousness of the charge, the court held that custodial interrogation was necessary.

'No protection to women in live-in arrangements'

Beyond the bail decision, the judgment highlighted what it termed a significant gap in legal protection for women in live-in relationships. The court observed that minors are safeguarded by the POCSO Act and married women have specific statutory remedies, but women in live-in arrangements lack comparable protections.

“Now a vulnerable section of women are facing mental trauma by the concept of ‘live-in relationship’ and are falling prey to it. Absolutely there is no protection at all,” the court said.

The judge further remarked that when disputes arise, women’s character is often attacked, even though both parties had voluntarily entered the relationship.

The court also took note of the complainant’s refusal to accept monetary compensation during settlement discussions, as she feared being labelled as someone who “slept for money”, a concern the judge said highlighted the gravity of the issue.