“This is one case where the disastrous consequences of live-in relationship have come on the scene. It is difficult for a woman to live alone after breaking of live-in relationship. The Indian society at large does not recognise such relationship as acceptable. The woman, therefore, is left with no option but to lodge first information report against her live-in partner, like in present case,” observed Justice Siddhartha of the Allahabad High Court.
The court, Friday, was dealing with a bail application in a case relating to the end of a live-in relationship and subsequent impregnation of the woman.
The bail application was moved by a man against whom a woman had filed a case under Sections 376 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The victim had alleged that the accused was in a live-in relationship with her for one-and-a-half years during which she got pregnant. However, he later refused to marry her.
Thus, she lodged a complaint based on which an FIR under Sections 376 (rape) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the accused in November 2022.
Further, the victim was earlier married to another man and had two children from that marriage. The woman claimed that it was the accused who had sent her obscene photographs to her husband. As a result, her first husband parted ways.
Meanwhile, the man’s counsel maintained that the woman is a major and willingly entered a live-in relationship with the accused. She was capable of understanding the consequence of such a relationship and there was no proof to show that the relationship started with the promise of marriage, the lawyer reportedly told the press.
Moreover, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.
The court found force in the arguments put forth by the counsel for the accused. Keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of the trial, one-sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of the accused side, accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial, and the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution along with other factors, the court allowed the man’s bail plea.