Delhi High Court Flags Kundali-Based Marriage Refusal After Sex as Offence

The Delhi High Court has drawn a firm legal line on promises of marriage, holding that a later refusal to wed on the ground of horoscope mismatch - after repeated assurances and a sustained sexual relationship - can prima facie amount to sexual intercourse induced by deceit.

Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma made the observation on February 17 while rejecting the bail plea of an accused booked under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Court Scrutinises Conduct, Not Just Consent

Placing the accused's conduct under judicial scrutiny, the High Court noted that the complainant alleged a prolonged relationship sustained by repeated promises of marriage. The refusal, when it eventually came, was based on horoscope incompatibility - a ground that the court found difficult to reconcile with the accused's earlier assurances.

The High Court took note of WhatsApp chats in which the accused had allegedly told the complainant that their kundalis matched and that the wedding was imminent, including a message stating, "Kal hi shaadi kar rahe hain hum."

Horoscope Argument Questioned

The court underscored that if horoscope compatibility was fundamental for the accused and his family, it ought to have been verified at the outset. Raising it after years of assurances, the High Court observed, prima facie suggested that the promise of marriage may not have been genuine.

Justice Sharma observed that such shifting positions, at the stage of bail, raised serious questions about whether consent for sexual relations was obtained on the basis of a false or deceptive promise.

Why Bail Was Refused

Explaining the relevance of Section 69 of the BNS, the Delhi High Court held that the accused's subsequent refusal to marry, despite earlier categorical assurances, squarely attracted the offence of sexual relations induced by deceit.

Taking into account the allegations, digital evidence, and the sequence of events placed before it, the High Court concluded that the matter required deeper examination and declined to grant bail.