The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has delivered a stinging observation on the vulnerability of women in live-in relationships, noting a disturbing trend where men enjoy the benefits of a modern relationship but revert to regressive notions of "character" to escape commitment.

Justice S. Srimathy made these remarks while denying anticipatory bail to a man accused of having sexual relations with a woman under the false promise of marriage. The Court also directed the police to invoke Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the new penal provision that specifically criminalizes sexual intercourse by deceitful promise of marriage.

In a detailed order, the Court highlighted the precarious legal and social standing of adult women in such relationships. Unlike minors protected under POCSO or married women shielded by matrimonial laws, women in live-in relationships often face a legal vacuum when abandoned.

The Bench observed:

"Men often embrace 'modernity' while entering live-in relationships, only to later turn around and question the woman's character once disputes arise... After benefiting from physical intimacy, men frequently disengage by branding women as immoral, thereby weaponising societal notions of character against them."

The Court termed this phenomenon as leaving women trapped "in a web of modernity and culture," exposed to social stigma and emotional trauma without adequate legal recourse.

The case involved a petition filed by Prabhakaran, who sought protection from arrest.

The Allegations: A nurse alleged that she had been in a relationship with the petitioner since school. In 2019, he allegedly established sexual relations with her on the specific assurance of marriage, despite his family's opposition.
The Betrayal: In August 2024, the couple reportedly left their homes to get married and lived together briefly. However, after the woman's father filed a missing person complaint, the petitioner allegedly dropped her back home, claiming family pressure, and later reneged on his written promise to marry her.
The Defense: The petitioner argued that he was unemployed and financially dependent on his parents. He claimed he ended the relationship after learning about the complainant's "alleged conduct"—a defense the Court seemingly viewed as the very "character assassination" it criticized.

The Court noted that while such cases were previously navigated through complex interpretations of "rape" or "cheating" under the old IPC, the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) provides clarity.

Section 69 criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling it.

Finding prima facie evidence that the petitioner had exploited the promise of marriage to engage in sexual relations, the Court directed the police to add Section 69 to the FIR and dismissed the anticipatory bail plea, citing the need for custodial interrogation.