Refusing to marry a woman over non-matching horoscopes (kundalis) after establishing a physical relationship with her and agreeing to the union before would be considered an offence of sexual intercourse by deceit or on false promise of marriage, the Delhi High Court recently observed in a ruling.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation on February 17, as the court denied bail to a man accused in an rape case registered under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 69 of the BNS, reported Bar and Bench.
“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,” Justice Sharma said adding that such conduct brings into doubt the nature and genuineness of the promises made by the man.
The case
A woman had alleged that her partner had engaged in a long-term relationship and established physical relations with her on repeated assurances of marriage.
{{/usCountry}}A woman had alleged that her partner had engaged in a long-term relationship and established physical relations with her on repeated assurances of marriage.
{{/usCountry}}Justice Sharma underlined that the accused had assured the woman that their horoscopes had matched and that there was no obstacle to their marriage over Whatsapp chats.
“Kal hi shaadi kar rahe hain hum (we are getting married tomorrow),” the accused allegedly wrote in one of the chats according to the Bar and Bench report.
The complainant also claimed that she had earlier withdrawn a complaint after the accused and his family reassured her of marriage, but denied to the same later citing non-matching kundalis.
The observation
Justice Sharma said that the stand was inconsistent with the man's prior representations and that if matching horoscopes were of such importance, the issue ought to have been settled at the threshold before entering into physical relations.
Rejecting the bail plea, the court noted that refusal to marry on grounds claimed to be resolved suggested that consent may have been obtained through false assurance.