Mumbai, India — The Bombay High Court has emphasized that an intimate relationship between two adults does not justify sexual assault by one partner on the other. This observation was made while the court refused to quash a rape case filed by a woman against her boyfriend.
A division bench comprising Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale dismissed the petition seeking to quash an FIR and the subsequent charge sheet filed against the petitioner. The court stated:
“The Complainant has clearly alleged that the Petitioner had established sexual intercourse forcibly with her and without her consent, despite a relationship. It is trite that a relationship may be consensual at the beginning but the same state may not remain so for all time to come. Whenever one of the partners shows their unwillingness to indulge in a sexual relationship, the character of the relationship as ‘consensual’ ceases to exist. The allegations in the present F.I.R. do not demonstrate continuous consent on the part of the complainant.”
The petitioner faces charges under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504, and 506 of the IPC, registered at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara.
The complainant, a divorcee living with her four-year-old son, alleged that the petitioner, who moved in next door on May 25, 2022, became acquainted with her, and their relationship gradually became intimate. She claimed that the petitioner declared his love, promised to marry her, and insisted on a sexual relationship, which she consistently refused.
According to the complainant, in July 2022, the petitioner threatened to commit suicide if she did not marry him and subsequently raped her. She alleged that he raped her again on two other occasions despite her resistance and promised to marry her after securing a job. The complainant also stated that the petitioner borrowed money from her multiple times and did not repay it.
Furthermore, the complainant accused the petitioner of forcing her into unnatural sex. When she approached his family regarding their marriage, they abused her, stating that she belonged to a different caste and threatened to kill her and her son.
“The Complainant alleges specific instances where the Petitioner has forcibly and without her consent established a sexual relationship with her. She contends specific instances of her rejection of advances by the Petitioner. We are of the view that the allegations in the F.I.R. prima facie constitute the commission of the alleged offense. The defense of the Petitioner cannot be tested at this stage,” the court held.
Read also: Crime Against Women on the Rise Again in India: Report