The Rajasthan High Court observed that sexual relations between adults outside marital setting is not a crime.

The Court also observed that the offence of Bigamy under Section 494 IPC is not attracted in a case of live-in relationship and it applies only when marriage is proved.

The Court held thus in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the husband, Ranveer to recall the order quashing FIR registered under Section 366 IPC.
The bench of Justice Birendra Kumar observed, “no statutory offence takes place when adults willingly engage in sexual relations outside the marital setting. Exception was adultery under Section 497 IPC, which has already been struck down. Likewise, offence under Section 494 IPC is not made out as it is not the case of the parties that anyone has remarried during the lifetime of husband or wife. Unless marriage is pleaded and proved only marriage like relationship such as living-in-relationship would not come within the mischief of Section 494 IPC.”

Advocate Ankit Khandelwal appeared for the Applicant and Government Advocate Jai Raj Tantia appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-

The applicant Ranveer had lodged the aforesaid FIR alleging that his wife was abducted by the accused persons. She appeared in court along with an affidavit where she specifically stated that no one had abducted her, rather she was in a live-in relationship voluntarily with Sanjiv, one of the accused.

The Court noted that the High Court in the earlier petition, whose order is under challenge considered the dictum in Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1 and Safi Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M. 2018(6) SCC 368, where as per the Court, the Supreme Court reiterated that constitutional morality ought to have precedence over societal morality and had elaborately discussed the right of privacy of an individual and its extent.

The Court further noted that the victim herself stated before the court that she was not abducted by anyone to go, therefore, the High Court in earlier petition was of the view that the offence under Section 366 IPC was not made out and accordingly quashed the FIR.

The Court now relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal & Ors., reported in AIR 2010 SC 3196 and quoted, “While it is true that the mainstream view in our society is that sexual contact should take place only between marital partners, there is no statutory offence that takes place when adults willingly engage in sexual relations outside the marital setting, with the exception of `adultery' as defined under Section 497 IPC.”

The Court further mentioned a landmark decision of Apex Court in Joseph Shine Vs. Union of India reported in (2019) 3 SCC 39, and observed, “Section 497 IPC as violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India and struck it down.”

The Court stated that the wife of the applicant along with other accused persons had jointly filed a reply, where she had consistently stated that she voluntarily left the house and she is in a relationship with Sanjiv.

Therefore, the Court did not find any merit in the prayer of the applicant, hence, dismissed the application.

Cause Title: Yadram v. State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:13084)

Appearance:

Appellant: Adv. Jai Raj Tantia

Respondent: GA Ghanshyam Singh Rathore, PP Mangal Singh Saini, Adv. Ankit Khandelwal

Click here to read/download Judgment


Rajasthan High CourtJustice Birendra Kumar

Tanveer Kaur