A failed romantic relationship need not always mean sexual relations were forced on either party, the Supreme Court noted Wednesday as it heard a plea by a man to quash rape charges levelled by his former fiancee. The woman had claimed she had sex expecting marriage.

However, a bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal cited an evolving sense of morality in the world today, pointed out the woman “did accept the relationship with the option it can be broken”, and asked if therefore any failed relationship could ultimately be so punished.

“You are a major… it cannot be you were hoodwinked to believe you will get married, etc. With due respect, today the concept of morality, virtues is different with the younger lot. If we agree with you, then any relationship between a boy and girl in college, etc., will be punishable.”

The court also observed complaints such as these are sometimes fed by conservative morals and values, in which the blame is apportioned to the man because of a “lacunae” in the system.

The woman’s lawyer pointed out the relationship in question was ‘arranged’ and not ‘romantic’ in nature, thereby raising the question of ‘consent’. “This is not a romantic relationship that went sour. This was arranged. Consent in this case cannot be said to be ‘free consent’,” Madhavi Divan said, explaining that the breaking of the engagement would amount to “social taboo”.

The woman, Ms Divan argued, had believed the man would not marry her if she didn’t please him. “It may have been casual sex for him… but not for the woman,” she told the court.

The court, though, countered that the situation had to be examined from both sides’ perspectives, and that it had “no attachment to any one gender”.

“I also have a daughter (but even) if she is in this position I need to look at a broader perspective. In this case… can conviction be secured with such weak material?” Justice Sundresh asked.

However, the court also noted that the woman is “ultimately… the victim”, and said, “Whatever observation you want from us or to set aside High Court observation…that’s okay…”

The court eventually decided it would hear the man’s plea further.