Recently, Delhi High Court has ruled that if a man engages in a physical relationship after assuring marriage, but later refuses to marry solely because the kundalis (horoscopes) do not match, such conduct may amount to sexual intercourse by deceit or on a false promise of marriage, attracting criminal liability.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that such conduct casts serious doubt on the nature and genuineness of the assurances and promises made by the man.

“The subsequent refusal to marry on the ground of non-matching kundalis, despite earlier assurances to the contrary, prima facie raises doubts about the nature and genuineness of the promise made by the applicant. At this stage, such conduct would attract an offence under Section 69 of the BNS, which specifically addresses cases involving sexual relations induced by deceit or a false promise of marriage,” the Bench observed.

The Court also took note of the prosecutrix’s claim that she had earlier withdrawn a complaint after fresh assurances of marriage were given by the accused and his family. However, the accused later refused to marry her, citing non-matching kundalis.

Justice Sharma found this stand inconsistent with the accused’s earlier representations, observing that if horoscope matching was of determinative importance, the issue should have been settled at the outset, before entering into physical relations. The Court added that a refusal to marry on grounds previously claimed to have been resolved prima facie suggested that consent may have been secured through deceit or false assurance.

In view of these observations, the Court rejected the bail plea.

Senior Advocate Sandeep Sharma, along with advocates Kuldeep Choudhary and Amit Choudhary, appeared for the accused, while Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar represented the State.