Even If One Party Is Married, Consensual Adult Relationships Must Be Assessed Without Moral Policing By Courts: Delhi HC
The complainant had alleged that the accused had maintained physical relations with her under the false pretense of marriage, despite being married himself.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that consensual relationships between adults even when one party is married must be assessed through a contemporary societal lens rather than one rooted in outdated moral frameworks.
A rape case was registered against a man, a commercial pilot by profession. The complainant, a cabin crew member working with an airline, had alleged that the accused had maintained physical relations with her under the false pretense of marriage, despite being married himself.
A Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “If two adults, even though one may be married, decide to live together or to have a sexual relationship, they must also take responsibility for the consequences of such a decision. Judges cannot impose their personal morality on the parties before them. At the same time, courts cannot ignore how educated adults themselves now look at relationships through a prism that was not acceptable in earlier times.”
Background
The complainant had initially alleged that the accused had raped her after administering a stupefying substance during a meeting in a hotel. It was further claimed that he continued to exploit her physically and emotionally by misusing her intimate photos and promising marriage, despite being married himself. She also claimed to have undergone multiple abortions during the relationship.
However, upon a detailed review of the case, the High Court found that the complainant was fully aware of the accused’s marital status shortly after the first incident but continued the relationship for over two years, during which they maintained regular physical and emotional intimacy.
“Notwithstanding this knowledge, she continued to voluntarily maintain physical relations with the petitioner until August 2020, when the relationship finally broke down, leading to the registration of the present FIR in September 2020,” the Court noted.
The FIR had been registered in September 2020, but the relationship had broken down only in August 2020, revealing a significant time lapse between the alleged misconduct and the filing of the complaint. The Court noted that the complainant’s actions and continued involvement indicated that the relationship was voluntary and consensual from the outset.
Finding
The Court emphasized the need for courts to refrain from moral policing, particularly in matters involving consensual adult relationships. Justice Sharma underscored the fact that law cannot remain static, and its interpretation must evolve with the norms of a dynamic society.
“It cannot lag behind or apply an outdated intent to a society that has already moved forward. While cases relating to commercial or contractual disputes are necessarily decided on settled legal principles which remain relevant, cases involving human relationships stand slightly on a different footing. They must be seen in the light of the way human relations themselves have changed, and they cannot be approached with a rigid or outdated lens. Judges, too, are part of this changing society, and the justice system cannot remain detached from these realities,” the judgment observed.
“When a woman voluntarily enters into such a relationship, she must also accept the repercussions that may arise from it,” the Court added.
Furthermore, the Court stated that an educated woman who continues a relationship with a married man does so with full knowledge of its implications and must take responsibility for that choice. The fact that the relationship did not culminate in marriage or eventually failed does not, by itself, render it exploitative under criminal law.
“Once such choices are made by educated adults, the responsibility of those choices must also be acknowledged, and it is not open to one party, after the relationship turns sour, to retrospectively paint it as a crime of sexual assault,” the Court concluded.
The Court quashed the FIR registered under rape charges against the accused and dismissed the allegations, holding that the relationship was consensual throughout its course and that the woman’s knowledge of the man’s marital status negated the claim of deception.
Cause Title: Gautam Sharma v. Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr., [2025:DHC:7924]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Samrat Nigam, Ajay Dabas, Priyanka Dagar, Arpita Rawat
Respondents: Advocates Naresh Kumar Chahar, Puja Mann