Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation

“No Misconception of Fact, No Force—Consent Between Adults Cannot Be Criminalised”, In a significant ruling Madras High Court acquitted a man convicted under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for alleged deception on the promise of marriage, emphasizing that a consensual sexual relationship between adults—absent proof of coercion or deceit at inception—does not amount to cheating under criminal law.

Justice M. Nirmal Kumar held that the Trial Court’s conviction was unsustainable, especially after it had already acquitted the appellant of the graver charge under Section 376 IPC (rape). Notably, the High Court found no evidence of a false promise of marriage made at the inception of the relationship, and accepted the consensual nature of the prolonged affair, despite the appellant being the biological father of the prosecutrix’s child.

“Consent Was Voluntary and Informed—Section 90 IPC Not Attracted”: Trial Court’s Own Finding Undermined Its Conviction

The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman (PW1) alleging that the appellant, Sathish @ Sathith Kumar, had sexually exploited her under the guise of a promise to marry, resulting in pregnancy and the birth of a child. A charge sheet was filed under Sections 417, 376 and 506(i) IPC, but the Trial Court, while acquitting the appellant of rape, still convicted him for cheating under Section 417 IPC, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000—to be paid as compensation to the child.

However, the High Court noted the internal contradiction in the trial court’s finding. While the trial judge held that the prosecutrix’s consent was not vitiated by misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC, the conviction for cheating was still sustained on the same set of facts. This, the High Court found untenable:

“The Trial Court finding is that prosecutrix consent for physical relationship with the appellant is voluntary and will not come under the ambit of Section 90 of IPC... There is no evidence to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant subjected prosecutrix to sexual act against her will and without her consent and on false promise to marry.” [Para 7]

Long-Standing Relationship, No Resistance, No Injury—Court Finds Relationship Consensual

The judgment highlights the mutual nature of the relationship, which spanned over one-and-a-half years, with frequent interactions between the two adults. The prosecutrix admitted that they had a love affair and engaged in physical intimacy on multiple occasions. She did not disclose the relationship to her family until she became pregnant, and the medical evidence confirmed absence of injuries or signs of force.

The Court stated:

“The prosecutrix is a grown girl aged about 23 years... she had volunteered herself, had continuous physical relationship with the appellant… she accompanied the appellant whenever he came to her Village.” [Para 7]

Importantly, the Court held that mere refusal to marry at a later stage, especially after a consensual relationship, cannot retrospectively convert consent into deception.

Supreme Court Precedent Relied On: 'Uday v. State of Karnataka'

In reaching its decision, the High Court relied on Supreme Court precedent in Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46, where it was held:

“If the prosecutrix freely exercised a choice between resistance and assent... she must have known the consequence of the act and consented... It cannot be said that the consent was in consequence of misconception of fact.”

The Court also drew strength from coordinate bench decisions in Hamsaveni v. Inspector of Police, 2014 (1) MWN (Cr.) 146 and Swami @ Ramakrishnan v. State, 2010 (1) TNLJ 104 (Criminal), reiterating that consensual physical relationships between adults—absent fraud at inception—do not constitute cheating.

DNA Confirmation of Paternity Not Conclusive of Crime

While the DNA test confirmed that the appellant was the father of the child, the High Court emphasized that paternity alone does not establish a criminal offence, particularly not under Section 417 IPC, which requires mens rea and intentional deception. The prosecution failed to demonstrate that the promise to marry was false from the beginning, which is a key ingredient for conviction.

“It is proved the appellant is the biological father of the child… but there is no evidence to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant subjected prosecutrix to sexual act against her will and without her consent and on false promise to marry.” [Para 7]

Compensation Sustained for Child’s Welfare Despite Acquittal

In a noteworthy humanitarian gesture, the High Court upheld the compensation of ₹1,00,000 deposited in favour of the minor child, Girija, born out of the relationship. The appellant had already paid the amount, and the Court permitted the mother to withdraw periodical interest for the child’s welfare, sustaining the trial court’s direction despite acquittal:

“The compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the accused... in the name of minor Girija and other condition with regard to the compensation amount is sustained.” [Para 8]

Consent Is Not a Crime—Court Reaffirms Boundaries of Criminal Law in Intimate Relationships

This judgment is a clear reaffirmation of the legal principle that every failed promise of marriage does not amount to a criminal act. Where adults enter into consensual relationships, criminal liability cannot be imposed unless deceit, coercion or falsehood at inception is proved. The Court’s reasoning upholds the distinction between moral expectations and legal culpability, drawing a bright line between consensual intimacy and criminal exploitation.

Date of Decision: 04 February 2026