Live-In Relationship Consent Presumed: Chhattisgarh HC Rules Refusal to Marry Not Rape Full Case Analysis
EduLaw EditorialLandmark JudgementsThe Chhattisgarh High Court has settled a critical question in Indian criminal law can a man be convicted of rape merely because he refused to marry his live-in partner? The answer, the Court held, is an unequivocal no. Title: Consent in Live-In Relationships Is Presumed — Mere Refusal to Marry Cannot Be Branded as Rape: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Acquittal Case Name: "XYZ" v. Siddharth Sarangi Case Number: ACQA No. 380 of 2025 Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh (Division Bench) Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment Date: 29 June 2026 (Reserved on 17 June 2026) Citation: 2026:CGHC:26186-DB ABSTRACT The present case analysis examines the landmark Division Bench judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in "XYZ" v. Siddharth Sarangi, wherein the Court dismissed the appellant-victim's appeal against the acquittal of the respondent-accused who had been charged under Section 376(2)(k)(n) and Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . The Court crystallized an evolving judicial principle: when two consenting adults live together in a long-term live-in relationship, the law raises a presumption that their physical intimacy was voluntary and consensual. The Court emphasized that a subsequent refusal to solemnize the marriage does not, by itself, retroactively vitiate consent so as to convert what was once a consensual relationship into rape. Drawing upon the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 INSC 635) , the Division Bench affirmed that Indian courts must not adopt a pedantic approach and should instead consider the duration of cohabitation, the conduct of both parties, and the financial independence of the woman before branding a failed relationship as a criminal offence. This judgment carries significant implications for the interpretation of consent in an era where live-in relationships are increasingly prevalent across India. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Legal Context Factual Background of the Case Procedural History and Trial Court's Findings Issues Before the High Court The Court's Reasoning and Ratio Decidendi Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent — Ravish Singh Rana (2025) Critical Evaluation and Broader Implications Conclusion 1. INTRODUCTION AND LEGAL CONTEXT The intersection of consent, promise of marriage, and live-in relationships has remained one of the most contested terrains in Indian criminal jurisprudence. Courts across India have grappled with the question of whether a woman's consent to physical intimacy — given during a subsisting romantic relationship — can be deemed vitiated solely because the man later refused to marry her. The charge of rape under Section 376 of the IPC (now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ) requires the prosecution to prove absence of free consent, and the legal distinction between a "false promise to marry" made with no intention of fulfillment from the very beginning, and a mere "breach of promise" where circumstances changed over time, has been elaborated upon in numerous Supreme Court decisions including Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 , Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608 , and most recently, Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 INSC 635) . The Chhattisgarh High Court's judgment in XYZ v. Siddharth Sarangi adds a robust layer to this jurisprudence by holding that in a long-term live-in relationship, the very duration and nature of cohabitation creates a legal presumption of consent, thereby shielding the relationship from being criminalized upon its breakdown. 2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE The appellant, identified as "XYZ" to protect her identity, was approximately 40 years of age and employed as a Project Manager with the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai. In April 2019, she secured admission to pursue an MBA programme at the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, where she became acquainted with the respondent-accused, Siddharth Sarangi. Their initial interactions revolved around academics, but on 5 July 2019, the accused invited her to his residence ostensibly for group study. Upon her arrival, she found no other students present. According to her complaint, the accused expressed his desire for a physical relationship and, when she objected, assured her of his intention to marry her. Relying on this assurance, she entered into a physical relationship with him. The parties thereafter continued their relationship and, by the appellant's own admission during cross-examination, lived together in a live-in arrangement for approximately two years. After their examinations concluded on 29 August 2021, the accused informed her over telephone that his parents did not consent to the marriage on account of her age, her status as a divorcee, and her Christian faith. Despite continued efforts by the appellant, the accused distanced himself. On 28 N