Madras High Court Rules Against Criminalizing Failed Consensual Relationships

Chennai:

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has delivered a notable judgment addressing the increasing number of criminal complaints arising from failed romantic relationships. The court quashed a criminal case filed by a woman lawyer against her former partner, establishing that consensual sexual relationships cannot be retroactively classified as criminal offences simply because they ended unfavorably.

Justice B Pugalendhi emphasized, "The criminal process cannot be used to moralise private conduct or convert personal disappointment into litigation, as courts deal with legality, not morality. The law intervenes only where consent is vitiated by coercion, deception or incapacity."

The case involved a female advocate who had accused her former partner of engaging in sexual relations with her under a false promise of marriage - an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. Their relationship reportedly lasted several years, from 2020 to 2025.

Justice Pugalendhi observed that both individuals were educated adults who had "consciously entered into a relationship of intimacy." He ruled, "Having exercised that choice, it is not open to either to later portray private discord as criminal misconduct," emphasizing that "the law is not an instrument for resolving emotional fallouts or for attributing moral blame arising from consensual acts between adults."

The Court cited several recent Supreme Court rulings - including Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013), Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024), Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra (2025) and Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (2025) - all warning against equating failed consensual relationships with deception or coercion. Quoting the Supreme Court, Justice Pugalendhi highlighted, "Every consensual relationship, where a possibility of marriage may exist, cannot be given a colour of a false pretext to marry, in the event of a fallout. Such litigation amounts to an abuse of process of law."

He also expressed concern about "the growing tendency to invoke the criminal process in private relationship disputes," noting that the judiciary has "witnessed an increase in complaints of this nature, where relationships voluntarily entered into are subsequently projected as instances of deception or breach of promise."

The Court ultimately determined that continuing criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of process and dismissed the case.

Justice Pugalendhi remarked, "In present times, instances of premarital intimacy between consenting adults are not uncommon. The line between emotional attachment and physical relationship is often indistinct, and when such relationships end in discord, competing narratives frequently emerge about what transpired in private."