Rajasthan High Court has stated that consensual physical relations between adults outside of marriag

• Rajasthan High Court has stated that consensual physical relations between adults outside of marriag
• admin
• 09 Apr, 2024

In a landmark ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has upheld the primacy of constitutional morality over societal norms in a recent criminal case.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Birendra Kumar, sets a significant precedent in the realm of legal interpretation and societal values.

The case in question revolved around the quashing of an FIR under Section 366 IPC. The respondent, Ranveer, had petitioned the court under Section 482 Cr. P.C., seeking to recall an order which had dismissed the FIR.According to the contentions presented before the court, Ranveer, the informant of the FIR, was unable to contest the case initially due to incarceration in another matter.

However, the court noted that the victim, respondent no.3, appeared in court and submitted an affidavit stating that she was not abducted but willingly engaged in a live-in relationship with one of the accused persons, Sanjiv.Citing legal precedents such as Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1 and Safi Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M. 2018(6) SCC 368, the court emphasized the importance of constitutional morality in adjudicating matters of personal liberty and privacy.

Justice Birendra Kumar quoted the Supreme Court’s dictum, stating, “Constitutional morality ought to have precedence over societal morality”.  The court also referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal & Ors., where it was affirmed that while societal norms may dictate certain behaviors, engaging in consensual relationships outside the marital setting does not constitute a statutory offense, except for adultery.

Furthermore, the judgment addressed the now-defunct Section 497 IPC, which criminalized adultery. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Joseph Shine Vs. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39, which struck down Section 497 IPC, was cited as a crucial development in understanding the legal landscape surrounding marital relationships.

In concluding the judgment, Justice Birendra Kumar remarked, “Unless marriage is pleaded and proved, only marriage-like relationships such as living-in relationships would not come within the mischief of Section 494 IPC.” The court ultimately dismissed the applicant’s prayer, finding no merit in the case.

Case No.: CRLMA-358/2022]

Bench: Justice Birendra

To get free legal advice: click here

For more legal updates visit our Youtube channel: click here