Refusing Marriage Citing Kundli Mismatch After Physical Relations, Repeated Assurances Attract S.69 BNS: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that refusing marriage citing kundli mismatch after establishing physical relations and repeated assurances of marriage attracts Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.Section 69 BNS criminalizes sexual intercourse achieved through deceitful means.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refused to grant regular bail to a man accused of establishing sexual relations with a woman...
The Delhi High Court has observed that refusing marriage citing kundli mismatch after establishing physical relations and repeated assurances of marriage attracts Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Section 69 BNS criminalizes sexual intercourse achieved through deceitful means.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refused to grant regular bail to a man accused of establishing sexual relations with a woman on the false promise of marriage and later refusing to marry her on the ground of non-matching of kundalis.
The Court said that repeated assurances regarding marriage, including representations that the horoscopes had already matched, followed by a subsequent refusal citing kundali mismatch, prima facie raised questions about the genuineness of the promise.
“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 said.
Justice Sharma dismissed the bail plea filed by the man in relation to an FIR registered under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
The prosecutrix alleged that she had been in a relationship with the man since their college days. According to her complaint, he had established physical relations with her on multiple occasions since 2019 on the assurance that he would marry her. She claimed she was introduced to his family as his prospective wife and even given a ring.
The woman alleged that in June last year, the accused refused to marry her stating that their kundalis did not match, despite earlier assurances that there was no impediment to their marriage.
She further alleged that she had earlier withdrawn a complaint in November 2025 after being assured by the accused and his family that the marriage would be solemnised.
Rejecting the plea, the Court noted, at the outset, that the accused had repeatedly assured the prosecutrix of marriage and had represented that there was no impediment to their marriage.
It also noted that he had taken steps, such as seeking the birth details of the prosecutrix for kundali matching and had, on multiple occasions, assured her that the horoscopes had matched.
Noting that despite such assurance, no steps were taken towards solemnization of the marriage and the accused later refused to marry the prosecutrix on the ground of non-matching of kundalis, the Court said:
“The sequence of events, at this stage, cannot be viewed as a mere relationship turning sour, but rather suggests that assurances of marriage were repeatedly extended despite the applicant being aware of the insistence of his family on kundali matching.”
“Thus, at this stage, the applicant's stand that the marriage could not take place only due to non-matching of kundalis appears inconsistent with his own conduct and representations made over the years. If the issue of kundali matching was indeed of such determinative importance for the applicant and his family, the same should have been resolved at the threshold before entering into physical relations,” it added.
Title: JAYANT VATS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)