The Delhi High Court has observed that refusing to marry after establishing physical relations, citing mismatched horoscopes, could constitute the offence of sexual intercourse by deceit or on false promise of marriage. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made this remark on February 17 while denying bail to an accused in a rape case.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that refusing to marry a woman over non-matching horoscopes after establishing a physical relationship and prior agreement to the union constitutes an offence of sexual intercourse by deceit or on false promise of marriage. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made this observation on February 17 while denying bail to a man accused in a rape case under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 69 of the BNS.
In the case, the woman alleged that her partner engaged in a long-term relationship and had physical relations with her based on repeated assurances of marriage. The court noted that the accused had assured her via WhatsApp chats that their horoscopes matched and there was no obstacle to marriage, including a message stating, “Kal hi shaadi kar rahe hain hum (we are getting married tomorrow).” The complainant had previously withdrawn a complaint after reassurances from the accused and his family, but he later refused citing mismatched kundalis.
Justice Sharma stated, “The subsequent refusal to marry on the ground of non-matching of kundalis, despite earlier assurances to the contrary, prima facie raises a question as to the nature and genuineness of the promise extended by the applicant. Such conduct, at this stage, would attract the offence under Section 69 of the BNS, which specifically deals with cases of sexual relations induced by deceit or false assurance of marriage.” The court added that if horoscope matching was so important, the issue should have been resolved before entering physical relations. The refusal, claimed after being resolved earlier, suggests consent may have been obtained through false assurance.
This ruling highlights questions around marital promises and consent but does not speculate on broader implications.