Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra held that when two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple of years, a presumption arises that they voluntarily chose that relationship aware of its consequences. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr (2025) Case?   

• The second respondent filed a First Information Report (FIR) at Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar on 23rd November 2023, against the appellant. 
• According to the FIR, the informant met the appellant through Facebook on 6th February 2021, and they began a live-in relationship. 
• The appellant rented a room in Khatima where they established a physical relationship multiple times with the appellant promising to marry the informant. 
• The physical relationship continued, though the informant was allegedly sometimes abused and beaten. 
• When the informant insisted on marriage, the appellant refused and threatened the informant, forcibly establishing a physical relationship on 18th November 2023. 
• The FIR was registered under Sections 376, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The appellant filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 922 of 2024 before the High Court to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• In this application, the appellant claimed both parties were adults who voluntarily lived together for over two years and had a consensual physical relationship. 
• The appellant also stated they had codified an agreement/settlement on 19th November 2023, and alleged the FIR was mala fide and intended to blackmail the appellant and his family. 
• The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the allegations in the FIR disclosed commission of a cognizable offense and therefore could not be quashed. 
• The appellant has now appealed this High Court order.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The relationship between the appellant and the second respondent (informant) existed since 2021, involving living together as a couple in a rented accommodation. 
• The FIR did not specifically allege that the physical relationship was established solely because of a promise of marriage. 
• The physical relationship continued for over two years without any complaint during this period. 
• The Court held that when two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple of years, a presumption arises that they voluntarily chose that relationship aware of its consequences. 
• The Court referenced Pramod Suryabhan Pawar case, which established that a mere breach of promise cannot be considered a false promise to establish misconception of fact. 
• In Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013), the Court distinguished between rape and consensual sex, emphasizing the need to examine if the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives. 
• The Court cited Sonu @ Subash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) where an FIR was quashed due to the consensual nature of the relationship. 
• The Court noted that in modern times, more women are financially independent and can make conscious decisions about their lives, leading to proliferation of live-in relationships. 
• The settlement agreement dated 19th November 2023, which was not disputed by the second respondent, indicated that the parties had been in love. 
• The Court concluded that on the ground of refusal to marry, the appellant could not be subjected to prosecution for rape. 
• The allegations of assault and abuse were not supported by any material particulars. 
• The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings, calling them an abuse of the court process.

What is Live in Relationship?

• There is a difference between “live in relationship” and the “relationship in the nature of marriage”.  
• Necessarily all live in relationships will not amount to ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ as contemplated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).  
• The DV Act uses the terminology ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ and not ‘live in relationship’. 
• In the case of D Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010), the Court observed the following:  
  • In a feudal society a relationship outside marriage was seen as a taboo and regarded with terror and disgust.  
  • However, the Indian society is changing and this change is evident and recognized by the Parliament in the DV Act.   
  • The Court further held that if a relationship in the marriage of marriage is akin to common law marriage it must satisfy the following:  
    • The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses  
    • They must be of legal age to marry  
    • They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried and  
    • They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as akin to spouses for a significant period of time.