Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Kunal Verma, Yugandhara Pawar Jha (Advocate-on-Record) and Piyush Bhardwaj, Advocates,
Judges
  • Adarsh Kumar Goel
  • S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.
Acts
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
  • Section 376 of the Penal Code, 1860
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Kunal Verma, Yugandhara Pawar Jha (Advocate-on-Record) and Piyush Bhardwaj, Advocates,
Judges
  • Adarsh Kumar Goel
  • S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.
Acts
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
  • Section 376 of the Penal Code, 1860
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner lived with the daughter of Respondent 2 for approximately six years. According to the criminal complaint, he induced her to engage in sexual relations on the promise of marriage and later reneged, giving rise to an allegation of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After the trial court took cognizance of the offence, the petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings before the Karnataka High Court, which rejected the request (2018 SCC OnLine Kar 643). The present special leave petition (SLP) challenges that order. In a connected matter—SLP (Cri) No. 3348 of 2018—the Supreme Court had already issued notice and granted a stay; the current petition was therefore ordered to be heard along with that case, and identical interim protection was extended.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the criminal proceedings for rape under Section 376 IPC, founded on an alleged promise to marry, should be quashed.
  2. Whether prolonged cohabitation, even if ultimately deemed consensual and non-criminal, can give rise to civil liability by treating the relationship as a de facto marriage so as to protect the woman from exploitation.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Vidhyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai (2008) 2 SCC 238 Live-in relationships and rights flowing from de facto marriages Cited as prior consideration of issues akin to those now before the Court
Pyla Mutyalamma v. Pyla Suri Demudu (2011) 12 SCC 189 Legal consequences of prolonged cohabitation Referenced to guide the inquiry into potential civil liability despite absence of criminal culpability
Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011) 1 SCC 141 Entitlements of women in live-in relationships Invoked to explore protective measures against exploitation
Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) 1 SCC 188 Maintenance and rights arising from non-formal unions Used to frame the broader question of remedies available to women in such relationships

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first condoned the delay in filing the petition and noted the earlier refusal of the High Court to quash the rape proceedings. Observing that stay had already been granted in a connected SLP, the bench extended identical interim relief here and directed that both matters be heard together.

During the hearing, the Court expanded the scope of adjudication by raising suo motu the issue of whether long-term cohabitation could create civil obligations comparable to marriage, even if the criminal charge fails. To ensure a thorough examination, the bench:

  • Appointed Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae.
  • Issued notice to the Attorney General of India, requesting the nomination of an Additional Solicitor General to assist.

The matter was then adjourned for detailed consideration on 12-09-2018.

Holding and Implications

Interim relief granted; petition tagged with connected matter for further hearing on 12-09-2018.

Immediate Effect: The petitioner benefits from the same interim stay that operates in SLP (Cri) No. 3348 of 2018, effectively pausing the criminal proceedings pending further orders.
Broader Implications: While no final determination has been made, the Court has flagged a significant question—whether prolonged live-in relationships can impose civil liabilities akin to marriage—which may influence future jurisprudence on the rights and remedies available to women in such relationships.

Show full summary ...

    Aloka Kumar v. State Of Karnataka And Others

    Order

    1. Delay condoned. This petition has been preferred against the order 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 643 rejecting prayer for quashing criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

    2. The criminal case registered by Respondent 2 is to the effect that the petitioner and daughter of Respondent 2 lived together for six years. The petitioner had promised to marry her but backed down. Thus, she was induced for the intercourse during the cohabitation on that consideration and not by free consent. The petitioner committed the offence under Section 376 of the Penal Code, 1860. The trial court having taken cognizance, the petitioner approached the High Court for quashing. The High Court rejected the prayer for quashing.

    3. In connected matter, SLP (Cri) No. 3348 of 2018, notice has been issued and stay granted 2018 SCC OnLine SC 751. Accordingly, let this petition be heard along with the said matter. We also grant interim orders in the same terms.

    4. During the course of hearing, one of the question which has been taken up for consideration whether, on account of long cohabitation, even if the relationship is held to be consensual and the petitioner is not held liable for the offence alleged, the petitioner can be fastened with the civil liability treating the relationship to be de facto marriage in view of long cohabitation. This interpretation may have to be considered so that a girl is not subjected to any exploitation and is not rendered remediless even if a criminal offence is not made out. Somewhat identical issue has been the subject-matter of consideration in several decisions, including Vidhyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai (2008) 2 SCC 238; Pyla Mutyalamma v. Pyla Suri Demudu (2011) 12 SCC 189; Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011) 1 SCC 141 and Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) 1 SCC 188. The issue is also discussed in an article published in “Live-In Relationship : Impact on Marriage and Family Institutions” (2012) 4 SCC J-19.

    5. To consider the above issue, we have requested Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel, present in Court, to assist the Court as Amicus. Having regard to the nature of issue involved, we also issue notice to the Attorney General of India and request the learned Attorney General to depute an Additional Solicitor General to assist the Court.

    6. List the matter for further consideration on 12-9-2018.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Aloka Kumar v. State Of Karnataka And Others
    (Jul 2, 2018)