New Delhi: The Supreme Court while dismissing a case against a man accused of raping a woman on the pretext of marriage observed that a long live-in relationship indicates that the couple didn’t want marriage.“In our view, if two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple of years and cohabit with each other, a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of its consequences,” the court said.A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra heard the case, which had come to the top court after the Uttarakhand high court had refused to quash the FIR against the man, LiveLaw reported.The couple in question had lived together for two years. On November 19, 2023, they executed a settlement deed stating that they will get married. The deed said that if the marriage is not formalised then legal action can be taken against the parties. On November 23, an FIR was filed against the man saying that he had forcible sex with the woman on November 18, 2023.The bench noted that no allegation about a physical relationship being established only on the condition of marriage was made out in the FIR.“Besides, physical relationship continued for over two years without a complaint in between. In such circumstances, a presumption would arise of there being a valid consent for initiating and maintaining the physical relationship that spanned over two years,” the court said.The woman’s counsel submitted to the court that “the agreement clearly stated that if marriage is not formalised then legal action will be taken. In these circumstances, since admittedly the marriage has not been registered and formalised, legal action has rightly been taken against the appellant.”However, the court also found the argument that the relationship was based on a promise to marry unacceptable.“The allegation that such a relationship was entered because there was a promise of marriage is in the circumstances unworthy of acceptance, particularly, when there is no allegation that such a physical relationship would not have been established had there been no promise to marry,” the Court observed.“Moreover, in a long drawn live-in relationship, occasions may arise where parties in that relationship express their desire or wish to formalise the same by a seal of marriage, but that expression of desire, or wish, by itself would not be indicative of relationship being a consequence of that expression of desire or wish.”