and personal grudge.” 12. In the decision in Shivashankar alias Shiva v. State of Karnataka and Anr.5, this Court held thus: - “4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is difficult to sustain the 5 (2019) 18 SCC 204 Page 10 of 14 SLP (Crl.) No. 9371 of 2018charges levelled against the appellant who may have possibly, made a false promise of marriage to the complainant. It is, however, difficult to hold sexual intercourse in the course of a relationship which has continued for eight years, as “rape” especially in the face of the complainant's own allegation that they lived together as man and wife.” 13. The decision in “XXXX” v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.6, also assumes relevance in the contextual situation. This court took into consideration an earlier decision of this Court in Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi)7, where the allegation was one of alleged rape on false promise of marriage, made five years after the complainant and the accused started having