Expenses Borne By Prosecutrix During Live In Relationship Would Not Constitute Criminal Offence: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that in a live-in relationship where both partners are living together, it would not be a criminal offence in case expenses are borne by the prosecutrix or by both the partners.

Justice Mukta Gupta made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to a man in a rape case filed by the prosecutrix with an allegation that she was made to spend Rs. 1,25,000 under pressure.

"In a live-in relationship where both the partners are living together, it is not that only one partner has to bear the expenses and in case expenses are born by the prosecutrix or both bear the expenses, the same would not be a criminal offence," the Court observed.

The facts of the case are that in September 2017, the prosecutrix had come to Delhi in search of job during which she met the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner pressurized the prosecutrix to persuade her parents for marriage. Later, her parents agreed for the marriage in August, 2019.

It was also alleged by her that the petitioner established physical relations contrary to her wishes claiming that there was no problem as the parents had agreed for their marriage. She claimed that when she used to refuse to anything, he used to assault her.

Furthermore, it was her case that she used to bear all the expenses which were around ₹1,25,000/-. Later, the sum was returned in lieu of a settlement between the parties. Subsequently, the instant FIR was lodged on allegations of rape.

"From the statements of the prosecutrix itself it is evident that both the petitioner and prosecutrix were in a live-in relationship and both persuaded their families for the marriage and initially it was the prosecutrix's family which did not agree, however later her father agreed for the marriage. No reason has been given as to why the marriage was not performed thereafter," the Court said.

On the allegations of the Prosecutrix that she was assaulted by the petitioner, the Court observed that there was neither any complaint nor MLC which showed that the petitioner used to assault her.

"Considering the nature of allegations levelled in the FIR this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner," the Court said.

Accordingly, anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner subject to him furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000 with one surety of like amount.

Case Title: RAHUL KUSHWAHA v. STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI

Click Here To Read Order