New Delhi: Criminal law cannot always be invoked for a failed relationship between consenting adults, Delhi High Court has said, adding that judges should not “impose their personal morality” even when one party may be married.“This court is of the opinion that law cannot be static; it has to move and progress with the changing norms of society. As society and communities evolve, the law, too, must advance. It cannot lag behind or apply an outdated intent to a society that has already moved forward,” the court said, quashing an FIR of rape against a married pilot who was in a relationship with a female cabin crew for over two years. “Such cases must be seen in the light of the way human relations themselves have changed… Judges, too, are part of this changing society, and the justice system cannot remain detached from these realities,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma pointed out. The justice system must not be judgmental, but must recognise the responsibility that flows from adult choices, the court said. “If two adults, even though one may be married, decide to live together or to have a sexual relationship, they must also take responsibility for the consequences of such a decision.” It added, “Judges cannot impose their personal morality on the parties before them. At the same time, courts cannot ignore how educated adults themselves now look at relationships through a prism that was not acceptable in earlier times.“The court rejected the stand of the woman that she was conned into a sexual relationship on a false promise. It said, “When an educated woman chooses to continue a relationship with a man despite knowing that he is married… she must recognise the possibility that the relationship may not culminate in marriage, or that it may eventually turn sour. The law cannot always be invoked as a remedy for a relationship that fails, where it was otherwise consensual in nature.” Justice Sharma said it was evident that the woman was fully aware from the beginning that the petitioner was a married man. “Despite this knowledge, she chose to continue the relationship for more than two and a half years, accompanying him on trips, residing with him at different places and even undergoing medical procedures such as abortions during this period. These are not isolated encounters but reflect that the prosecutrix was an active participant in the relationship.” He emphasised, “It is not open to one party, after the relationship turns sour, to retrospectively paint it as a crime of sexual assault.”
