‘Kundali’ Mismatch No Justification For Breaking Marriage Promise: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court recently observed that refusing to marry a woman after establishing a physical relationship, particularly by citing reasons such as "kundali mismatch", can attract up to 10 years' jail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The court indicated that a man cannot automatically escape criminal liability if it is shown that the promise of marriage was made dishonestly to obtain consent for a physical relationship.

Invoking astrological incompatibility at a later stage, the court suggested, may not be a sufficient defence if the intent from the beginning was deceptive.

The observation came in the context of a case where the accused allegedly developed a relationship with the complainant, engaged in physical intimacy, and later declined marriage, citing horoscope mismatch.

The court highlighted that to determine whether consent was genuine or obtained through misrepresentation, the timing and intent behind the promise are crucial.

Legal Position Under the BNS

Under criminal law, consent obtained through deception can be treated as invalid. Courts have consistently distinguished between a genuine relationship that fails due to unforeseen circumstances and a relationship initiated with a false promise of marriage made solely to secure sexual consent.

If it is proven that the accused never intended to marry and used the assurance only as a tool to induce consent, the act may fall within the ambit of rape provisions under the BNS. However, if the promise was made in good faith and later could not be fulfilled due to circumstances beyond control, criminal liability may not arise.

The Delhi High Court’s remarks reinforce that explanations such as family objection or ‘kundali’ mismatch cannot be mechanically accepted without examining whether they were pretexts.

Separate Case: Supreme Court Says 'Boy & Girl Are Strangers Before Marriage'

A recent oral observation by the Supreme Court of India on premarital relationships has triggered public debate on consent and trust.

During a bail hearing in a rape case based on an alleged false promise of marriage, Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court remarked that “before marriage, a boy and a girl are strangers” and questioned how they could engage in physical relations before marriage.

She also cautioned that “one must be very careful” and that “nobody should trust anyone before marriage.”

The comments were made orally and do not constitute a binding judgment. The case involved allegations that the accused had obtained consent for physical relations by promising marriage and later withdrew.

While the Supreme Court’s remarks stirred discussion about premarital intimacy, the Delhi High Court has addressed the legal consequences of such situations more directly.

Though the Supreme Court’s oral comment emphasized judgement in pre-marital relationships, the Delhi High Court’s comments emphasised accountability in cases where deception is alleged.

This contrast brings out two distinct approaches in judicial discourse—one is cautionary in tone, while the other is concerned with the possibility of abuse of marriage guarantees.

Notably, neither of the two courts has changed the legal position that consensual relationships between consenting adults are not criminal. The deciding factor in this regard is whether consent was given on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation.

Women, Consent and Repeated Patterns

False promises of marriage cases have been appearing in courts from time to time. The complainants have claimed that they agreed to have sexual intercourse with the accused because they believed that they would marry, but instead, they were denied.

It is observed that the reasons for not marrying the complainant include astrological incompatibility. The Delhi High Court’s stand highlights that the reason should be valid and should not be rejected by the court, especially in cases of false promises.

The matter is also linked to gender vulnerability. It is argued that women’s rights have been violated because women have been misled by promises of marriage.

Ongoing Legal Debate

As courts continue to handle cases involving allegations of rape based on false promises of marriage, the interpretation of consent, intent and deception remains critical.

The Delhi High Court’s recent observation signals that citing ‘kundali’ mismatch after entering into a physical relationship may not suffice to avoid criminal prosecution if dishonest intent is established. Each case, however, will continue to be assessed on its specific facts and evidence.