Sex Outside Marriage Is Not Offence Under Law: Rajasthan HC

In a groundbreaking verdict, the Rajasthan High Court has recently upheld the supremacy of constitutional morality over societal conventions, ruling that consensual sex outside of marriage is not a statutory offence.

In a landmark ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has affirmed the precedence of constitutional morality over societal norms, declaring that consensual sex outside of marriage is not a statutory offence.

Justice Birendra Kumar observed, "While it is true that the mainstream view in our society is that sexual contact should take place only between marital partners, no statutory offence takes place when adults willingly engage in sexual relations outside the marital setting."
A man had filed an application, requesting the recall of an order that had dismissed an FIR under section 366 (Kidnapping, abducting, or inducing a woman to compel her marriage) of the Indian Penal Code.

The FIR had been lodged by the man, claiming that his wife had been abducted by three individuals. However, the applicant was unable to attend the proceedings as he was in jail for a separate offence. During this period, his wife appeared before the court and stated that she was in a consensual live-in relationship with one of the accused.

The court stated, "a live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterogenic sex does not amount to any offence (with the obvious exception of adultery'), even though it may be perceived as immoral."

Considering the pronouncements in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India and Shafin Jahan v Asokan KM, wherein the Supreme Court emphasized the primacy of constitutional morality over societal norms, the Court dismissed the FIR. Unhappy with this ruling, the complainant appealed to the High Court.

Advocate Ankit Khandelwal, representing the applicant, argued that since the applicant's wife had acknowledged the extramarital relationship, offences under section 494 (marrying again during the lifetime of husband or wife) and 497 (adultery) of the IPC were applicable.

However, the court did not find merit in the plea and dismissed the plea.