Delhi HC: Consent in courtship not deceit under false promise law

To be sure, by “interaction,” the court clarified, it meant normal social and personal communication between two adults during the period of courtship — not sexual relations.

The Delhi High Court has held that a consensual relationship during the courtship period does not by itself give rise to criminal liability merely because one party later chooses not to marry. The ruling came while granting bail to a man accused of engaging in sexual relations under a false promise of marriage. 

The criminal case stemmed from an FIR lodged on August 11 under section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS)

Justice Arun Monga, in an eight-page order delivered on September 26 and released later, observed, “The very purpose of courtship or interaction prior to marriage is to assess mutual compatibility. To suggest that a person cannot change their mind after such interaction would defeat the essence of the concept itself.”

To be sure, by “interaction,” the court clarified, it meant normal social and personal communication between two adults during the period of courtship — not sexual relations. The bench emphasised that such interactions are intended to help individuals assess compatibility before marriage, and that changing one’s mind in the course of such interactions cannot, by itself, constitute deceit or criminal intent.

The criminal case stemmed from an FIR lodged on August 11 under section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), which penalises sexual intercourse by deceitful means or a false promise to marry. The complainant alleged that she had met the man in April through a matrimonial website, where he represented himself as well-settled in Dubai and claimed his family had agreed to the marriage. She further stated that during his visit to India, he engaged in a sexual relationship with her on the assurance of marriage. Later, she alleged, his family began making unlawful demands, including a flat in Dubai, a luxury car, and cash. The accused was arrested on August 12. 

In his bail plea, the man contended that he was falsely implicated, calling the allegations fabricated and frivolous. He claimed he had intended to marry the complainant, but the alliance could not be finalised due to her conduct and that of her family. 

Opposing the plea, additional public prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal, representing Delhi Police, argued that if released, the accused could abscond, threaten witnesses, or tamper with evidence. 

However, the court noted significant contradictions in the woman’s testimony — the primary basis for granting bail — observing that in WhatsApp chats, she had herself admitted no physical intimacy had taken place.

“It seems to be an unfortunate case where two consenting adults entered into a relationship with the initial intention of exploring the possibility of marriage. However, after getting to know each other better, one party chose not to proceed with the alliance. This legitimate exercise of choice has been misconstrued as a breach of promise,” justice Monga held.