Delhi High Court Clarifies Legal Position on Marriage Refusal After Kundali Mismatch
The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant ruling stating that refusing to marry someone due to a 'kundali' or horoscope mismatch after establishing a physical relationship based on assurances of marriage can potentially constitute a criminal offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). This section specifically criminalizes sexual intercourse achieved through deceitful means or false promises.
Court Denies Bail in Landmark Case
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma articulated this legal position while rejecting the bail application of a man accused of engaging in physical relations with a woman over an extended period and subsequently refusing to marry her, citing incompatibility in their birth charts. The court meticulously examined the sequence of events in this particular case.
The accused had been in judicial custody since January 4 and sought regular bail, arguing that the relationship was entirely consensual and that both parties had known each other for approximately eight years. His legal counsel contended that the offence of rape based on a false promise of marriage was not substantiated and that he should be released on bail.
Detailed Chronology of Events
In its detailed order dated February 17, the court outlined the following timeline:
- The prosecutrix initially filed a formal complaint in November 2025.
- She later withdrew this complaint after receiving what she believed were sincere assurances of marriage from the accused and his family members.
- Subsequently, the accused refused to proceed with the marriage, explicitly citing a mismatch in their 'kundalis' or horoscopes as the primary reason.
- A fresh First Information Report (FIR) was lodged in January 2026, alleging offences under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 69 of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Court's Critical Observations and Reasoning
The bench made several crucial observations that formed the basis of its decision to deny bail:
- The court acknowledged the general legal principle that criminal law cannot be invoked merely because a romantic relationship fails or a planned marriage does not materialize. However, it emphasized that the present case presented distinct circumstances.
- The judge noted that physical intimacy was established over time specifically based on the accused's repeated and explicit assurances to the woman that there were no impediments to their marriage, including the matter of 'kundali' matching.
- The subsequent refusal to marry, grounded solely on horoscope mismatch despite earlier contrary assurances, prima facie raises serious questions about the nature, intent, and genuineness of the original promise made by the applicant.
- Therefore, at this preliminary stage of the legal proceedings, such conduct appears to attract the provisions of Section 69 of the BNS, which deals with sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means or making false promises.
The court concluded that this was not a simple case of a "relationship turning sour" but rather involved repeated assurances of marriage despite the applicant's alleged awareness of his family's insistence on astrological compatibility.
Bail Application Dismissed
Ultimately, Justice Sharma dismissed the bail plea. The court stated it was not inclined to grant relief considering:
- The serious nature of the allegations.
- The evidence and material collected by investigators during the ongoing probe.
- The fact that the chargesheet in the case had not yet been formally filed.
This ruling underscores the legal scrutiny applied to cases where assurances of marriage are given to establish a physical relationship, and those assurances are later retracted on grounds that were previously dismissed or not disclosed as obstacles.
