The intersection between criminal law and intimate relationships has always been a challenging domain for Indian courts. The jurisprudential dilemma grows sharper in cases where consensual relationships subsequently collapse, leading to allegations of sexual assault or exploitation. The September 2025 intervention of the Kerala High Court involving a long-term consensual relationship and an alleged false promise of marriage has added significant clarity to this evolving field, emphasizing autonomy, intent, and restraint in using the criminal justice system.
The actual fact of the case is, the complainant, a divorced woman with a 7-year-old child, stated that she became acquainted with the petitioner at his gym in 2023. Their association developed into a physical relationship based on his promise to marry her and take her abroad. She alleged that this relationship continued until August 27, 2025 and the petitioner later began avoiding her. She further alleged that he eventually blocked her contact, following which she lodged the complaint. He was arrested on August 31, 2025, and has been in custody since then.
The complainant claimed her consent for intimacy was secured on the assurance of eventual marriage as an assurance the accused ultimately did not fulfill, prompting police complaint and arrest under sections 69, 74 and 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The prosecution’s position asserted that the accused induced the complainant into a sexual relationship with false, never-intended commitments and later discarded her, thus warranting serious criminal charges. On the other hand, the accused’s counsel argued, the duration and character of the relationship clearly indicated ongoing, willing participation, not coercive exploitation. And also, Criminal law should not be weaponized to punish failed interpersonal bonds, especially in absence of clear fraud or force.
Further, there was no evidence that the promise of marriage was false at the inception. Thus relationships can fail for numerous reasons without criminal intent.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Prashant v. State of NCT Delhi, which clarified that merely because a relationship between a couple has turned sour and the marriage did not take place, it cannot be assumed that the offence of rape was committed. It also cited Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court emphasized that “a consensual relationship turning sour at a later point in time or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking the criminal machinery of the State and that such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence.
Indian sexual offence laws always treats women as the sole victims of criminal sexual acts and men as the only perpetrators of such crimes. Throughout the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860 and its successor Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 there exists gender-based provisions. The latest statutory structure adopts numerous gender-specific expressions from its preceding laws particularly in relation to rape offenses, sexual harassment cases, and prosecutions for unnatural sex. It is the need of time for the gender-neutral legal system to protect all people equally without regard for their gender identity.
In the landmark case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Sepoy (2018) played the crucial part in demythologizing the Indian legal structures and challenging the heteronormative mindset in Indian society. The Supreme Court repealed Section 377 of the IPC that regarded “unnatural offences” making the sexual right of the LGBTQ+ people legal.
Although the case was primarily concerning one’s right to homosexuality, the court recognized a general need for sexual assault legislation that is not gendered. It is the court signalled that protection based on gender must include men and non-binaries since Article 14 of the constitution outlaw’s discrimination on the same ground (UNHRC, 2018). However, in the present state the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 which define rape and sexual harassment still have gendered approach, which means the LGBTQ+ category is still left open to receive all legal provisions implemented.
In the case of Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court of India heard about the exception in Section 375 of the IPC that permits a husband to have the non-consensual intercourse with his wife only in case the wife is above the age of 15 years. The court set aside this provision for minor wives which the court held provided that the rape of a girl below the age of 18 years is rape under the POCSO Act, 2012. However, the judgment did not go overboard and failed to criminalise marital rape for women who are above the age of consent is an indication of how institution of Indian sexual offences laws remain gendered. The judgment is meaningful since it evinced the judiciary’s capacity to evolve on the provisions of the law, despite the legalisation of marital rape for the women of India. This aspect also underscores the need to fully sensitize the law for gender blindness particularly now that marital rape remains a crime against both genders among married people.
The most common objection about the passage of gender-neutral laws is misuse and false reporting. Currently, there are arguments likely to be made that extending the definition of rape and sexual harassment to male and transgender individuals is likely to result in a number of false cases similar to what has been noted under section 498A IPC (dowry harassment) and sexual harassment cases.
As the expansion of time the wants of the people also changed. Thus it needs to be carefully balance the protection of genuinely aggrieved victims against the rights of the accused, refusing to treat every soured relationship as a matter for penal intervention. Laws are intended for both the parties, Not to favour for the one.
