False Promise of Marriage Must Meet the Wrath of Law: Madras High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail in Sexual Exploitation Case

"If Marriage Is Not Possible, Men Ought to Face the Wrath of Section 69 BNS", Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), in a significant ruling delivered by Justice S. Srimathy declined anticipatory bail to a man accused of engaging in a sexual relationship with a woman under a false promise of marriage. Invoking the newly enacted Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Court ruled that “the only section that grants protection to women is under section 69 of BNS and the men ought to face the wrath of the Section 69 of BNS,” emphasizing the statutory consequence of deceit in such intimate relationships.

The Court also directed the investigating agency to add Section 69 of BNS to the FIR, recognizing the legal vacuum that previously existed under the IPC in addressing sexual exploitation by deceit, particularly within the context of live-in relationships and unfulfilled marital promises.

Intimacy, Abandonment, and the Search for Justice

The petitioner, Prabhakaran, sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 35 of 2024 registered under Sections 417, 420, 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The FIR stemmed from a complaint filed by S. Nancy, a young nurse, who alleged that the petitioner—her childhood friend and later romantic partner—induced her into a sexual relationship over several years with repeated promises of marriage.

According to the complainant, their relationship deepened while she was working in Coimbatore, and despite familial opposition, the couple fled to Trichy to solemnize their marriage on August 9, 2024. However, the petitioner later abandoned the plan and left her at her residence, ultimately denying the marriage commitment during police inquiry. Allegedly, his family had threatened the complainant with dire consequences due to their inter-caste relationship.

Although mediation was attempted by the Court, and the petitioner initially expressed willingness to marry, he subsequently refused to file an affidavit to that effect, leading to the collapse of reconciliation efforts.

In contrast, the petitioner claimed the allegations were concocted, asserting that he had broken off the relationship upon discovering the complainant’s "bad character" and that he was mentally and financially unfit for marriage.

Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: A Statutory Shield Against Exploitation by Deceit

The central legal issue before the Court was the applicability of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which was enacted to fill the legislative void in cases where men exploit women sexually by falsely promising marriage without intent to fulfill such promises.

The Court extensively discussed the scope and purpose of Section 69 BNS, observing: “The said provision is attracted if fraudulently by making a promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling the same has sexual intercourse with the woman.”

The Court clarified that unlike under the Indian Penal Code, where such cases oscillated between charges of cheating (Section 420) and rape (Section 376), Section 69 of BNS offers a distinct and specific penal provision for deceitful sexual intercourse:

“There is no separate provision to deal with the offence under IPC, but was dealt under Section 375 / 376 i.e. rape or cheating. But under BNS, it is not considered as rape but is considered as crime under false promise to marry.”

In light of the facts, the Court found that the petitioner’s conduct squarely attracted the ingredients of Section 69:

• A promise to marry was made;

• There was no intention to fulfill it;

• Sexual intercourse occurred on that basis;

• The act did not amount to rape, but clearly fell under the purview of Section 69.

Women in Live-In Relationships Are Left Unprotected

Justice Srimathy’s judgment also contained strong judicial observations on the vulnerability of adult women in live-in relationships. The Court drew attention to the legal asymmetry in protection available to different categories of women:

“Girls below 18 years are protected from sexual abuse under POCSO. Married women are protected by maintenance, granting residence, etc. But a vulnerable section of women who are facing mental trauma by the concept of ‘live-in relationship’… absolutely there is no protection at all.”

Highlighting the cultural dissonance and emotional trauma faced by such women, the Court lamented the societal hypocrisy:

“While having live-in relationship, the boys would assume themselves as modern, but they slam the girls of their character for having live-in relationship.”

The Court emphasized the need to recognize the concept of Gandharva marriage from ancient Indian traditions—where love marriages occurred without formal rituals—and suggested that live-in relationships could be granted similar legal recognition to afford rights to abandoned women:

“The live-in relationship may be recognised as Gandharva marriage / love marriage. In live-in relationship, the women ought to be protected by granting the status of ‘wife’...”

Refusal of Bail: Custodial Interrogation Deemed Essential

Citing the breakdown of mediation, the petitioner’s refusal to file an affidavit agreeing to marry, and the prima facie material suggesting sexual exploitation, the Court refused to grant anticipatory bail:

“Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case… since the allegation against the petitioner is promise to marry and there are prima facie evidence available, hence interrogation is necessary.”

The Court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition, holding that custodial interrogation was essential to further the investigation.

This ruling marks one of the early and emphatic applications of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, underlining its utility in addressing intimate partner exploitation not previously dealt with directly under IPC. The judgment also stands out for its gender-sensitive commentary, raising urgent concerns about the legal vacuum faced by adult women in live-in relationships. The refusal to grant anticipatory bail signals the judiciary’s increasing resolve to address these complex and evolving socio-legal challenges with firmness and nuance.

Date of Decision: 11 November 2025