Dr. Ritu Saraswat. The Supreme Court’s recent observation that “merely because a relationship has ended or become unpleasant cannot subsequently be converted into rape. Charges of rape based on the false promise of marriage are admissible only if supported by clear and convincing evidence. The breakdown of a consensual relationship between adults cannot form the basis of a criminal rape case against a man” has become a topic of discussion.

While quashing a rape case against an Aurangabad lawyer, a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan also said, “Converting every bad relationship into a rape offense not only diminishes the gravity of the crime but also imposes an indelible stigma and grave injustice on the accused. Such misuse of the criminal justice system is a matter of grave concern.”

This isn’t the first time the court has made such harsh comments about live-in couples. In June 2025, in the case of Shane Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court stated that “live-in relationships are contrary to the values ​​of Indian middle-class society and often lead to legal disputes, adversely affecting women.”

Currently, the Indian social and cultural system is going through a transitional period, where so-called feminist groups are trying to prove that a woman’s true freedom lies in freedom from marriage. This is why the number of young women in the country is increasing, rejecting marriage as a bondage and an outdated concept, and emphasizing live-in relationships as an alternative.

Today’s young Indian generation, considering themselves modern, ignores traditional norms and pats themselves on the back for adopting live-in relationships as a sign of independent thinking, but after some time, they find themselves trapped in a maze from which it is not easy to escape. In the case of Adnan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2023), the court had said, ‘At first glance, live-in relationships appear very attractive…, but with the passage of time… such couples begin to realise that their relationship does not have social acceptance and cannot last a lifetime…’

Anthropologist J.D. Unwin, after extensive and in-depth research, concluded that the primary cause of cultural decline in any society was the laxity of sexual mores. According to Unwin, the highest flourishing, most powerful combination of culture was “absolute monogamy” with marriage and absolute chastity. Cultures that maintained this combination for at least three generations surpassed all others in every field, including literature, art, science, architecture, and agriculture. Indeed, for the younger generation, which considers individual freedom the ultimate criterion for development and self-fulfillment, questions of society, culture, and collective responsibility appear irrelevant and sometimes even oppressive.

If live-in relationships are considered a safer, freer, and more modern option than marriage, it’s worth considering why so many young men and women become embroiled in criminal charges, emotional disputes, and legal battles after such relationships break up. If this system truly protected their interests, the number of such cases in the courts wouldn’t be constantly increasing. The most paradoxical aspect of this is when young women, who consider live-in relationships a symbol of “empowerment” and “freedom,” begin to expect marriage to the same partner after a few years of living together.

Women who, in the name of independence, dismiss marriage as archaic or a hindrance, ultimately seek stability, security, and social acceptance within it. This suggests that while the allure of live-in relationships may initially seem modern and convenient, over time, social realities and emotional expectations drive them to return to the very framework they previously rejected as unnecessary constraints.

In the same case, Adnan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Three Others, the Allahabad High Court had sharply remarked that live-in relationships can never provide the security, social acceptance, progress, and stability that the institution of marriage provides. Live-in relationships will only be considered normal in this country after the institution of marriage becomes obsolete, just as protecting the institution of marriage has become a major problem for many so-called developed countries. We are going to create a major problem for ourselves in the future.

There is a systematic plan in this country to destroy the institution of marriage, destabilize society, and hinder the nation’s progress. Certain films and TV serials are destroying the institution of marriage. Infidelity within married relationships and independent live-in relationships are being presented as signs of a progressive society. The younger generation is being drawn to this philosophy because they are unaware of its long-term consequences. … Jumping from one relationship to another is by no means a satisfying life. The concept of changing partners every season cannot be considered a hallmark of a stable and healthy society.

The security and stability that marriage provides to a person’s life is not possible through live-in relationships. Children born from such relationships face many problems.

The court’s observation warns that if the younger generation continues to ignore reality in the name of modernity, they will pay the price for this delusion in the form of severe social and personal crises in the future. Then there will be no turning back.