The Delhi High Court has held that a man’s refusal to marry a woman on the ground of non-matching kundalis (horoscopes), after having established physical relations and despite earlier assurances to the contrary, can attract charges criminalising sexual intercourse by deceit or on false promise of marriage [Jayant Vats v State (NCT of Delhi)]. 

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that such conduct brings into doubt the nature and genuineness of the promises made by the man. 

“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 Bench said. 

The Court made the observation while denying bail to a man accused in an rape case registered under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 69 of the BNS. The complainant-woman alleged that the accused had engaged in a long-term relationship with her and established physical relations on repeated assurances of marriage.

Justice Sharma noted that material on record, including WhatsApp chats, indicated that the accused had assured the woman that their horoscopes had matched and that there was no obstacle to their marriage. In one message, he allegedly stated “kal hi shaadi kar rahe hain hum (we are getting married tomorrow),” projecting the marriage as imminent.

The prosecutrix also claimed she had earlier withdrawn a complaint after fresh assurances of marriage were extended by the accused and his family.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 his prior representations. It observed that if horoscope matching was of determinative importance, the issue ought to have been settled at the threshold before entering into physical relations. 

The Court added that subsequent refusal to marry on grounds previously claimed to be resolved suggested that consent may have been obtained through false assurance.

Therefore, it rejected the bail plea. 

Senior Advocate Sandeep Sharma with advocates Kuldeep Choudhary and Amit Choudhary appeared for the accused. 

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Naresh Kumar Chahar represented the State. 

[Read Order]