Court Cannot 'Stamp' Polygamous Relation Between Married Persons: P&H HC Declines To Accept Compromise Plea By Man Booked For Raping Live-In Partner

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused of raping his live-in partner.

It was submitted that the matter was later compromised between the live-in couple who were already married to their respective spouses. In view of the compromise, the accused filed a second appeal against the order rejecting his pre-arrest bail.

Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeevan said, "The Court cannot stamp a live-in relationship inter se two married persons by granting them the concession of pre-arrest bail by way of accepting the present appeal. Polygamy is not permitted under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and permitting such a relationship by allowing the appeal and granting the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the appellant would give a wrong signal to the society, as such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant cannot re-agitate the matter by filing the second appeal on the strength of the said compromise deed."

The Court was hearing a second appeal filed against an order rejecting the accused person's pre-arrest bail. An FIR was registered under Sections 354, 354-A, 376 (2) (n), 377 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1) (w) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989.

It was submitted that after the passing of the High Court's order whereby his plea for anticipatory bail was rejected, the matter had been compromised between the parties. 

He submitted that due to differences, his live-in partner registered the FIR alleging rape and now she was not interested to pursue the complaint.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that both the appellant and the prosecutrix are married to their respective spouses.

"The prosecutrix started the live-in relationship with the present appellant with her consent and without any pressure as she was not happy with her marriage. It is further alleged that both the parties are having live-in relationship since April 2021 and they got executed a live-in relationship deed on 01.04.2021 and since then they are contentiously living in the said relationship," the Court noted further.

Justice Jeewan highlighted that, in case the said compromise is accepted, this would be against the public policy, since both, the appellant and complainant are married to their respective spouses.

The Court relied upon Indra Sharma vs. K.V. Sharma (2013), wherein the Supreme Court on the question of whether a relationship between an unmarried woman and a married man could qualify as a live-in relationship as defined under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, categorically held that the respondent who was a married person could not have entered into a live-in relationship of the nature of a marriage. 

"All live-in relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage. It was further observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court that if the relationship between the appellant (unmarried woman) and respondent (married man) is considered as a relationship in the nature of marriage, with the sanction of the Court, grave injustice would happen to the legally wedded wife and the children who oppose the relationship," it added.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the plea.

Mr. S.S. Sahu, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Amrik Singh Narwal, D.A.G. Haryana.

Ms. Shelja Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

XXX v. XXX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 196