Cuttack: Court Reiterates the Importance of Consent in Relationships
The Orissa High Court recently dismissed rape charges against a 33-year-old man who had been accused of engaging in an intimate relationship with a woman based on a promise of marriage. The court emphasized that the law does not provide protection for every broken promise nor does it classify every failing relationship as criminal.
This ruling followed a petition submitted on November 25 of last year, which contested a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the woman at the Balangir town police station back in 2021. Justice S K Panigrahi remarked on the need to critically evaluate the notion that every physical relationship between a man and a woman implies an obligation for marriage, describing it as a remnant of societal control rather than a legal principle.
Historical Context of the Relationship
In his order on February 14, published on February 21, Justice Panigrahi reflected on the relationship that began in 2012, citing that both individuals were consenting adults who made their choices freely. He noted that personal disappointment stemming from the relationship not resulting in marriage does not equate to a legal offense, underlining that a failed romantic relationship is not a crime.
Legal Principles and Consent
Justice Panigrahi pointed to legal precedents related to consent and sexual autonomy, asserting that continuing with the criminal proceedings against the man would constitute an abuse of judicial process. The court highlighted that the longevity of their nearly nine-year relationship was a clear indicator of mutual consent.
Details of the Relationship
According to court documents, the woman, now in her early 30s, met the man during a computer course in Sambalpur in 2012. Their initial friendship transitioned into a romantic relationship that persisted even after the man secured a job as a police sub-inspector. The woman claimed they had solemnized their marriage at Samaleswari Temple in Sambalpur on February 3, 2021, and had begun the process of registering their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, which remained incomplete due to the man failing to attend a scheduled registration on March 18, 2021.
A Call for Change in Societal Norms
In addressing the woman’s claims of intimacy established under false promises, the man maintained their relationship was consensual. The court underscored that the idea that a woman only engages in intimacy as a precursor to marriage reflects outdated patriarchal notions, rather than principles of justice. Justice Panigrahi articulated that the legal system should not serve as a means of moral policing, but rather protect a woman’s autonomy to engage in relationships on her terms, free from societal expectations or coercion.
In conclusion, the court’s ruling serves as a reminder that laws must not be shackled by antiquated views of women’s agency and should instead promote equality and freedom in personal relationships.
