By Binny Yadav
In a verdict that resonates with the realities of modern India, the Supreme Court in Ravish Singh Rana vs The State of Uttarakhand & Anr ruled that a “long-term live-in relationship cannot be presumed to have begun on a false promise of marriage”, and therefore, a charge of rape on that ground does not stand. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, observed that when two adults choose to live together for an extended period, “there is an inherent presumption of consent and mutual understanding”—a decision made consciously, not naively.
The judgment is not just a legal pronouncement—it’s a “reflection of a societal shift”, one where the law acknowledges that love, choice and consent among adults must be respected, even when relationships end badly. In doing so, the top court has both validated the legitimacy of live-in partnerships and drawn a clear boundary around the misuse of rape laws to compel marriage. Therefore, a claim of rape based solely on the promise of marriage is legally unsustainable.
In plain terms, the Court said: “If two consenting adults live together for an extended period, it is presumed that they did so knowingly, willingly, and without coercion”. That, in itself, reframes the narrative around modern relationships—especially live-ins—as not only legitimate, but deeply rooted in mutual agency.
A CASE THAT SPOKE VOLUMES
The woman in this case alleged that the man had sexually exploited her on the basis of a false promise to marry. They had been living together for years. But the Court drew a firm line, that “prolonged cohabitation is not the same as deception”, and adults today are “well-informed” enough to understand the implications of their decisions.
“Such a relationship,” the bench observed, “reflects a conscious choice. It is difficult to accept that the association was predicated solely on a promise of marriage.” The tone was clear, respectful—but unambiguous. “Agency matters. So does accountability”.
The verdict categorically states: “It is difficult to accept that a relationship of long duration, such as a live-in, was based on a promise of marriage alone. Adults today are more than capable of making informed decisions about their personal lives.”
PROGRESSION THROUGH PAST JUDGMENTS
This isn’t the first time that India’s top court has lent legitimacy to live-in relationships. In Indra Sarma vs VKV Sarma (2013), the Supreme Court recognised that a live-in can, under certain conditions, resemble a marriage—and therefore deserves legal protection. In Lata Singh vs State of UP (2006), the Court had firmly upheld the right of two adults to cohabit without societal interference.
What makes the Ravish Singh Rana judgement a distinct marker in this legal journey is its recognition of emotional complexity in adult relationships. It’s a nod to a more modern, realistic India—one where people fall in love, live together, break apart, and still deserve dignity and fairness.
RAPE LAWS: PROTECTION OR PRESSURE?
It’s an uncomfortable truth—but the current verdict reflects that the judiciary can’t ignore the truth any longer. The growing number of cases where rape allegations are made after live-in relationships turn sour has triggered a critical debate: Are criminal laws being stretched into tools of emotional reprisal?
In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs State of Maharashtra (2019), the Court had already laid down a test, “a breach of promise to marry does not amount to rape unless it can be shown that the promise was false from the start”. The Ravish Singh Rana case now extends that safeguard to live-ins, reminding us that laws protecting sexual integrity cannot become levers for emotional leverage.
BEYOND GENDER: A CALL FOR RESPONSIBILITY
There’s a temptation to view this ruling through a gendered lens—does it disempower women? On the contrary, it asks both men and women to own their choices. True empowerment means having the freedom to choose—but also the maturity to accept the consequences.
The judgment sends a subtle but strong message that “one cannot use the criminal justice system to compel a partner to marry”, just as you can’t be forced into a live-in if you don’t want. It protects emotional autonomy on both ends of the spectrum.
India is not the same society it was even a decade ago. Urbanisation, education and generational shifts have made live-in relationships more visible—and more accepted. Yet, law and morality don’t always evolve at the same pace. That’s why this ruling matters.
It reflects a maturing judicial mindset—one that respects adult choice, understands the dynamics of modern love and separates consent from coercion.
—The writer is a New Delhi-based journalist, lawyer and trained mediator