Failed Relationships Cannot Automatically Be Treated as Rape: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State–Station House Officer, Kadirur Police & Anr., 2026, discharged a man accused of rape and other offences, holding that the allegations did not establish the ingredients of the offences. The Court observed that a consensual relationship cannot be retrospectively treated as rape merely because it ended on bitter terms. It also clarified that genuine cases involving deception about an existing marriage must be examined on the basis of their facts and evidence.

Background of the Case

The complainant had previously been married and divorced before entering into a relationship with the appellant, Santhosh Kumar N.P. According to her, he represented himself as unmarried and offered to marry her. They allegedly underwent a marriage ceremony at a temple in Mysuru in 1996 and lived together until 2003.

The complainant stated that she had consented to physical relations believing that she was lawfully married to him. However, within a few months, the appellant’s brother informed her that the appellant was already married and had two children. Despite learning this, she continued living with him.

In 2008, she approached the Magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking alternative accommodation and financial assistance. After the proceedings were dismissed, she filed criminal complaints alleging offences under Sections 376, 420, 493, 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The second complaint led to the registration of an FIR. The Trial Court rejected the appellant’s discharge application, and the Kerala High Court upheld that decision. He subsequently approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Observation

Consent and the Allegation of Rape

The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the complainant’s consent to physical relations had been obtained through deception about the appellant’s marital status.

The Court examined Section 376(2)(n) IPC, which provides punishment for repeatedly committing rape against the same woman. It explained that the word “repeatedly” refers to separate acts of sexual assault and cannot be applied merely because consensual sexual relations took place repeatedly during an ongoing relationship.

In the present case, the Court noted that the complainant continued living with the appellant even after learning about his earlier marriage. It therefore found no material to suggest that the repeated sexual acts during their relationship amounted to rape.

The Court further observed that the end of a relationship cannot, by itself, change the nature of consent given during that relationship. A failed or bitter relationship does not automatically turn earlier consensual intimacy into a criminal offence.

Distinction Between Deception and a Failed Relationship

The Court emphasised the need to distinguish between a relationship built entirely on deception from one in which an individual later regrets having consented to physical intimacy.

It clarified that where a woman is genuinely kept unaware of her partner’s existing marriage and consents to a sexual relationship on the belief that she is lawfully married to him, her consent may be affected by that deception. Such cases cannot be dismissed merely because the relationship continued for some time.

However, the Court held that this principle must be applied on the basis of facts and evidence, rather than allegations or assumptions. In the present case, the complainant’s knowledge of the appellant’s earlier marriage and her continued cohabitation were significant factors in the Court’s assessment.

Other Criminal Charges

The Court also examined the allegations of cheating and offences relating to a second marriage. It found no material to establish cheating under Section 420 IPC, as there was no allegation that the complainant had been induced to deliver property or deal with a valuable security.

Similarly, the Court found insufficient material to establish a legally valid second marriage, which was necessary for the offences under Sections 493, 494 and 495 IPC.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court held that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not established and that the criminal proceedings could not be allowed to continue. It set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the Kerala High Court and discharged the appellant from all the charges.

The judgment reiterates that allegations of sexual assault must be examined carefully, while ensuring that criminal law is not used to turn every failed consensual relationship into a rape prosecution.

Read the full judgement here : https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/33755/33755_2025_3_1501_75699_Judgement_30-Oct-2026.pdf