When You’re Accused of Using a Marriage Promise for Sex: The Law Explained
- Mansha Khemka
- May 29
- 8 min read
In contemporary India, relationships and intimacy between consenting adults have become more socially visible. However, legal challenges arise when these relationships sour and one party alleges that consent was induced by a false promise of marriage.
Until recently, these allegations were dealt with under a combination of rape laws and general fraud provisions. With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the law now addresses this scenario directly through Section 69, which criminalises sexual intercourse by deceitful means.
Section 69 BNS: A New Codification of an Old Judicial Doctrine
Section 69 criminalises sexual intercourse not amounting to rape, where consent is obtained by “deceitful means,” including a false promise to marry made without the intention to fulfil it. The maximum punishment is ten years’ imprisonment and fine.
The provision was introduced to fill a legal gap. Previously, courts interpreted such conduct under Section 375 IPC (rape) read with Section 90 IPC (consent under a misconception of fact). This judicial interpretation varied widely. Some courts treated these allegations as rape; others rejected the charges as arising from failed relationships. Section 69 now carves out a distinct middle ground recognising that while not every broken promise is rape, intentional deceit should not go unpunished.
Crucially, the provision codifies the threshold of “intent at inception”, which Indian courts had evolved over the last two decades. Only if it can be shown that the accused never intended to marry and used the promise as a mere pretext to engage in sexual relations can criminal liability arise.
Judicial Interpretation: Early Application of Section 69 BNS
In 2024 and early 2025, several High Courts have ruled on anticipatory bail applications and the scope of Section 69. The emerging pattern reflects judicial caution against overcriminalisation of failed relationships.
In Prem Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 10471, the applicant sought anticipatory bail after being accused of deceitful sexual relations. The High Court observed that the complainant was a consenting adult and that the FIR was filed seven months after the end of the relationship, suggesting retaliatory motive. The Court held that mere non-performance of a marriage promise, without evidence of dishonest intent from the beginning, does not amount to an offence. Bail was granted.
Similarly, in Chandrakant Jalchhatri v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 12486, the applicant, a gym trainer, was in a romantic relationship with the complainant. Allegations of sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage were made after the relationship ended. The Court observed that the complainant was an adult woman of sound understanding, and the relationship was clearly consensual and voluntary. There was no proof that the promise to marry was a calculated lie. Bail was granted.
In Khamendra Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 12487, the relationship had spanned over three years. The complainant accused the applicant of inducing her into repeated sexual acts with a marriage promise he never intended to fulfil. The Court found that the longevity of the relationship and the absence of coercion or deception suggested mutual involvement, not exploitation. Bail was again granted.
In a more complex scenario, Bhupesh Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine HP 4513, dealt with a transgender complainant who had undergone gender reassignment surgery. The High Court ruled that Section 69 could not be invoked because the statute defines the complainant as a “woman” under Section 2(35) BNS, and at the relevant time of intercourse, the complainant was not legally recognised as female. The case marked a statutory limitation on the gender applicability of Section 69.
Statistical Context: A Legal Issue With Growing Prevalence
Allegations of sexual relations induced by a false promise of marriage are neither novel nor rare in India. Over the past decade, such complaints have formed a substantial proportion of rape-related FIRs, raising legally and emotionally fraught questions of consent, deception, and failed relationships.
According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) Crime in India 2016 report, approximately 10,068 rape cases or nearly 24% of the total reported were filed on the basis of a false promise to marry. This trend illustrates how penal provisions are frequently invoked to address grievances arising from the breakdown of intimate or matrimonial assurances.
A study by Partners for Law in Development (2017), analysing 16 rape prosecutions in Delhi trial courts, found that 24% of cases involved allegations of false promise of marriage, while another 41% stemmed from consensual relationships later criminalised, often due to family or societal objection. These findings underscore how personal and social pressures can shape the trajectory of legal action.
Crucially, conviction rates in such cases remain low. The NCRB Crime in India 2022 report noted a national conviction rate of just 27.4% in rape cases under the IPC. Many cases end in acquittal or are withdrawn due to lack of evidence, delayed filing, or the complainant turning hostile. Courts have repeatedly observed that FIRs are often filed only after the accused marries another person or the relationship ends acrimoniously, casting doubt on the credibility and intent behind the complaint.
These statistical and sociological insights have informed the judiciary’s caution in interpreting Section 69 BNS. The concern is not with punishing genuine deceit, but with curbing the use of criminal law as a tool of emotional retaliation or social reparation after intimate relationships collapse.
Nevertheless, even in the absence of a conviction, the accused is often subjected to prolonged investigation, arrest, custodial interrogation, social stigma, and reputational harm, making the legal process itself a form of punishment. This harsh reality underscores the need for judicial prudence and procedural safeguards, particularly where the complaint appears retaliatory or is filed after considerable delay.
Doctrinal Issues and Evidentiary Threshold
The courts, including the Supreme Court (under the earlier IPC framework), have consistently emphasised the need for clear evidence of deception. In interpreting Section 69 BNS, High Courts have followed the same standard. The legal test remains:
Was there a promise of marriage?
Was that promise false from the beginning?
Was the promise made solely to obtain sexual consent?
If these questions are answered affirmatively with credible evidence, the offence is made out. But if the promise was sincere, or the relationship was genuine and later failed due to personal or social reasons, then no criminal liability arises.
Section 69 also implicitly requires courts to distinguish between consent given under mutual trust and consent extracted through fraud. This is a subjective inquiry, but the burden is firmly on the prosecution.
Sociological Dimension: Between Autonomy and Exploitation
Allegations under Section 69 BNS arise at the sensitive intersection of individual autonomy, intimate consent, and social expectation. In the Indian context, where sexual intimacy remains culturally linked with matrimonial commitment, a broken promise of marriage often results in profound personal and familial disillusionment. Women, or their families, may feel emotionally and socially wronged when a relationship especially one involving physical intimacy does not culminate in marriage. In such cases, filing a criminal complaint is sometimes used not only to seek justice but also to reclaim perceived honour.
However, the invocation of criminal law in the aftermath of a failed consensual relationship presents a serious risk of misuse. Courts have acknowledged that when mature adults enter into intimate partnerships particularly where such relationships are voluntary, prolonged, and known to both parties criminalising them after a fallout can result in the distortion of legal process.
In Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 741, the Hon’ble Supreme Court (B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.) examined whether physical relations allegedly based on a promise to marry could constitute rape or cheating. The complainant, a divorced woman, had engaged in a long-standing intimate relationship with the appellant, a judicial officer, with knowledge of his personal circumstances, including his separation from his spouse. The Court held:
“Every consensual relationship, where a possibility of marriage may exist, cannot be given a colour of a false pretext to marry, in the event of a fall out… It is such lis that amounts to an abuse of process of law.”
This judicial sentiment reflects a growing recognition that not every promise unfulfilled amounts to deception. The Supreme Court stressed that where the complainant is fully informed and has made a reasoned choice to engage in an intimate relationship, consent cannot be retroactively converted into misconception of fact.
Drawing on prior rulings like Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46, and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, the Court reiterated that a false promise of marriage must be shown to have been false from the beginning, and not merely one that failed due to changed circumstances.
This sociological and legal outlook confirms the Court’s restraint in treating romantic failure as criminality. It aligns with a jurisprudential shift toward recognising that criminal law should not become a vehicle to adjudicate private emotional fallout, unless there is clear and provable deceit.
A Cautionary Example
We are increasingly approached in matters involving allegations of sexual relations induced by a purported false promise of marriage. In one recent case, our client, a respected professional had been engaged in a consensual relationship which concluded mutually due to compatibility concerns. Several months later, following his lawful marriage to another individual, an FIR was filed under Section 69 BNS, alleging that the relationship had been premised on a false promise of marriage. Notably, there were no allegations of coercion or any material indicating dishonest intent at the outset. Through prompt legal intervention, we secured anticipatory bail to prevent custodial arrest and subsequently obtained a stay of proceedings from the High Court, pending final adjudication. This case and many others illustrate that in the face of potentially retaliatory or mala fide prosecutions, early and strategic legal advice is often the only effective means to safeguard liberty and reputation.
What Accused Men Must Know
Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 addresses sexual consent obtained through deceit, including false promises of marriage. Courts have clarified that the offence is made out only where the promise was false from the very beginning not where a relationship later fails or a commitment cannot be fulfilled due to changed circumstances.
Individuals facing such allegations should be mindful of the following:
Understand the legal threshold: The law requires proof of dishonest intent at the time of making the promise, not merely a subsequent failure to marry.
Maintain relevant records: Messages, emails, photographs, and other material documenting the nature of the relationship may become important if legal proceedings follow.
Avoid direct engagement with the complainant: Once an allegation is made, it is generally advisable to let matters proceed through the legal process without personal interaction.
Consider seeking appropriate professional guidance: Where there is a risk or initiation of criminal prosecution, professional advice can assist in understanding procedural and evidentiary aspects.
Footnotes and References
Prem Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 10471.
Chandrakant Jalchhatri v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 12486.
Khamendra Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 12487.
Bhupesh Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine HP 4513.
Crime in India Report 2022, National Crime Records Bureau, Book 1, Ch. 3A, https://ncrb.gov.in/en/crime-in-india.
Abhishek Bhalla, Delhi Rapists Use False Marriage as Trap, 25% of Cases Based on False Promises, India Today (Dec. 25, 2016).
Uttar Pradesh: Marriage Promises Led to 57% Rapes in State, Says NCRB Data, Times of India (Oct. 22, 2020).
Nupur Thapliyal, Long Term Consensual Physical Relationship Doesn’t Mean Consent Was Purely Based On Promise To Marry: Delhi HC, LiveLaw (Mar. 3, 2025).
Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of W.B., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 741.
Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46.
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608.
Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, § 2(35) (definition of “woman”).
India Const. art. 226; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 528.
Comments