The Bombay High Court has dismissed a case against a 73-year-old man accused of sexually abusing a woman since 1987, stating that the relationship was consensual. The division bench, comprising Justices A S Gadkari and Neela Gokhale, observed that the FIR clearly indicated a consensual relationship and noted the significant delay in lodging the complaint, which was filed in 2018.

"The parties were involved in a sexual relationship for 31 years. The complainant never expressed any objection to the relationship," the court remarked. "This appears to be a case where a long-term relationship turned sour, leading to the complainant filing a police report."

According to the case details, the woman began working at the man's company in 1987, during which time he allegedly initiated sexual relations with her forcibly. Over the next 30 years, between July 1987 and 2017, the accused allegedly raped her at various hotels in Kalyan, Bhiwandi, and other locations. The woman claimed the man promised to marry her, placed a 'mangalsutra' around her neck in 1993, and declared her his second wife, preventing her from marrying anyone else.

The woman further alleged that after the man suffered a heart attack in 1996, she took over the company’s operations. However, in September 2017, her mother was diagnosed with cancer, prompting her to take a leave of absence. Upon her return, she found the office closed and the company’s gate locked. When she contacted the man, he refused to marry her and withheld important documents, including those related to banking, income tax, a medical shop agreement, and the gold 'mangalsutra.' He also declined to meet her.

The court noted that the FIR itself showed the woman was aware that the accused was already married but continued to believe his assurances regarding marriage. "She is an adult and should know that the law forbids a second marriage. There is no allegation that the accused promised to divorce his first wife and marry her. Even if he did, this would be mere wishful thinking on her part," the court stated.

The bench also pointed out that in the past 31 years, the woman had ample opportunities to break away and file a complaint against the accused but chose not to do so.