The Delhi High Court clarifies that refusing marriage after physical relations due to reasons like “kundali mismatch” may attract criminal liability under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Introduction
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court observed that a person who induces physical relations by promising marriage and later refuses to marry — citing reasons such as “kundali mismatch” — may face prosecution under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
This judgment has sparked nationwide discussion on consent, deception, and criminal liability in relationships, especially in cases where marriage is used as a basis for obtaining consent.
Let’s break down the legal reasoning, scope of Section 69 BNS, and the broader implications of this ruling.
Background of the Case
The matter before the Delhi High Court involved allegations that a man had engaged in physical relations with a woman after promising to marry her. Later, he refused to proceed with the marriage, allegedly citing “kundali mismatch” (astrological incompatibility).
The central legal issue was:
Can consent obtained through a false promise of marriage amount to criminal deception under the new BNS framework?
The Court examined whether such conduct falls under the newly codified provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 2023.
What Is Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Section 69 of the BNS deals with sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means, including:
- False promise of marriage
- Misrepresentation of identity
- Suppression of material facts
- Fraudulent inducement leading to consent
Under this provision, consent is considered legally invalid if it is obtained by deception or fraudulent promise, particularly when the promise was never intended to be fulfilled.
This is a major evolution from earlier jurisprudence under Section 375 IPC (rape law), where courts distinguished between:
- A genuine but broken promise (not criminal), and
- A false promise made with no intention to marry from the beginning (criminal).
The BNS framework provides clearer statutory recognition of deception-based consent.
Key Observations of the Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court made several important observations:
Consent Must Be Free and Informed
Consent is not merely physical agreement. It must be:
- Voluntary
- Based on truthful representation
- Free from deception
If a woman consents to intimacy because she believes marriage will follow, and that belief is created intentionally through false assurances, the consent may be legally vitiated.
“Kundali Mismatch” Cannot Automatically Shield Liability
The Court noted that citing “kundali mismatch” after a prolonged relationship may raise suspicion if:
- The promise of marriage was the primary inducement.
- The refusal appears as a convenient excuse.
- Evidence suggests the accused never intended to marry.
The Court did not say that every broken engagement becomes a crime. Rather, the intention at the time of making the promise is crucial.
Intention at the Inception Is Key
Courts will examine:
- Messages and communication records
- Conduct of the accused
- Duration and nature of the relationship
- Whether steps toward marriage were genuinely taken
If evidence shows that the promise was made merely to obtain physical relations, Section 69 BNS may apply.
Legal Difference: Broken Promise vs False Promise
This distinction is critical:
| Broken Promise | False Promise |
|---|---|
| Intention to marry existed initially | No intention to marry from the beginning |
| Marriage failed due to later circumstances | Promise used as a tool for sexual access |
| Civil dispute | Potential criminal offence |
The Delhi High Court emphasized that criminal law intervenes only when deception is intentional and foundational.
Social and Legal Implications
Strengthening Protection of Women
The ruling reinforces that emotional and psychological manipulation in relationships can have criminal consequences when consent is fraudulently obtained.
Preventing Misuse Concerns
At the same time, courts remain cautious to avoid criminalizing consensual adult relationships that simply fail over time.
Greater Evidentiary Scrutiny
With digital communication (WhatsApp chats, emails, social media), courts now rely heavily on documentary evidence to determine intention.
Practical Impact of the Judgment
After this ruling:
- Individuals making promises of marriage must understand the legal seriousness.
- Relationships involving long-term assurances can become legally scrutinized.
- Police and trial courts may be more willing to register FIRs under Section 69 BNS in deception-based cases.
However, conviction still depends on strict proof of fraudulent intent.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s interpretation of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita marks a significant development in Indian criminal jurisprudence. It underscores that consent obtained through deception is not valid consent.
While the law protects individuals from exploitation under false promises of marriage, it carefully balances this with the principle that not every failed relationship is criminal.
As India transitions fully into the BNS era, this judgment sets an important precedent in shaping how courts view marital consent, deception, and criminal accountability in modern relationships.
Frequently Asked Questions: Delhi High Court on Promise of Marriage & Consent
Does every broken promise to marry become a criminal offence?
No. A relationship ending does not automatically trigger criminal liability. The prosecution must prove that the accused never intended to marry from the beginning.
What evidence is important in such cases?
Courts examine:
Text messages and chats
Witness statements
Engagement ceremonies or public commitments
Financial transactions related to marriage
The intention at the time of the promise is the most crucial factor
Is “kundali mismatch” a valid defence?
It can be, but not automatically. If astrology concerns were genuine and present from the beginning, it may not amount to deception. However, if cited only after obtaining physical relations, courts may treat it skeptically.
