What is False Promise to Marry? Section 69 of BNS

A false promise to marry refers to a situation where one person makes a commitment to marry another, without any real intention of following through with that promise, and the other person relies on that promise to their detriment—often emotionally, socially, financially, or physically.

To establish that a promise to marry was false, it must be shown that the accused had no intention of fulfilling the promise at the time it was made, and that the promise was made with the intent to deceive the complainant. Such deception must have induced the complainant to engage in sexual relations, thereby vitiating her consent due to a misconception of fact.

Indian courts began to recognize that if a man induces a woman to have sexual intercourse by falsely promising marriage, and had no intention of marrying her from the beginning, the consent is not “free” and is obtained under misconception of fact. A false promise to marry can form the basis for criminal or civil legal action, depending on the facts and intent behind the promise.

What is False Promise to Marry?

False promise to marry refers to a situation where a man induces a woman into a sexual relationship by falsely promising marriage, without any real intention of fulfilling that promise. In the Indian legal context, this concept arises frequently in cases involving allegations of rape under the guise of marriage, fraud, or cheating.

This makes it fall under the definition of rape under Section 375 IPC read with Section 90 IPC (which deals with consent given under a misconception of fact).

Practical Examples:

• A man promises marriage to a woman, engages in a relationship, but later refuses to marry her claiming parental disapproval. If it’s proven that he had no intention from the start, this may amount to rape or cheating.

• But if the relationship broke due to genuine reasons (family pressure, compatibility issues), and the intention was initially honest, it may not attract criminal liability.

Essential Elements to Prove a False Promise to Marry:

• There was a clear promise of marriage.

• The accused made this promise without intention of fulfilling it.

• The promise was used to obtain consent for sexual relations.

• The woman acted on that promise and suffered harm as a result.

Legal Framework

1. Section 375 IPC – Definition of Rape

Section 375 IPC defines rape and includes specific circumstances where “consent” is not considered legally valid. These include consent obtained by:

• misconception of fact (Explanation 2 to Section 375),

• coercion, threat, or fear of death or hurt.

The term “misconception of fact” is key here and has been the foundation for courts interpreting false promises or deception as vitiating consent.

For example:

• If a man has sexual intercourse with a woman on the false pretext of marriage, and it can be shown that he never intended to marry her from the outset, it may amount to rape under Section 376 IPC.

• The consent obtained in such a situation is not considered free consent under Section 90 IPC, as it was given under misconception of fact.

Courts have consistently held that not every breach of a promise to marry is rape, but if the promise was a deliberate lie, made solely to obtain sexual favors, it qualifies as misrepresentation and deceit, attracting criminal liability.

2. Section 90 IPC: The Legal Link

Section 90 IPC clarifies that consent given under fear of injury or misconception of fact is not valid. Courts have used this to interpret such situations as rape, even though the IPC doesn’t specifically mention “rape under false pretext of law”.

3. Section 417 IPC – Cheating

• Alternatively, if the facts do not amount to rape but involve deceit, the person may be charged under Section 417 for cheating.

Rape on the False Promise to Marry – A Judicial Creation

The offence of rape on the false promise of marriage is a judicial innovation—not a statutory provision under the IPC. It was first recognised in Uday v. State of Karnataka, where courts extended the concept of vitiated consent from Section 90 IPC (a general defence) to Section 376 (rape), thereby criminalising consensual sex between adults based solely on a failed promise of marriage.

What makes this offence particularly prone to misuse is its essential ingredients: first, consensual sex; and second, a failed relationship—both of which are not uncommon in adult life. Yet, when combined and retrospectively analysed under the lens of “false promise,” they can suddenly acquire the colour of a criminal offence.

The underpinning rationale of this offence often appears paternalistic, if not outright patriarchal—portraying the court as a knight in shining armour, delving deep into the intimate lives of adults to determine whether a woman was “deceived” into consenting to sex, as though she lacked agency despite being of sound mind and full age.

Every day, numerous cases are registered where a consensual relationship turns into an allegation of rape after the couple parts ways. Since the sexual act is admittedly consensual at the time, traditional signs of force—such as injuries—are naturally absent. With no physical evidence in most cases, courts rely heavily on private communications like WhatsApp chats, exposing intimate relationships to public scrutiny.

In essence, the judiciary not only created an offence but one that’s difficult to prove, easy to misuse, and deeply intrusive. It opens the floodgates to criminalising private relationships and invites judicial oversight into the deeply personal realm of adult autonomy.

Despite numerous judgments attempting to differentiate a “false promise” from a “failed promise,” the line remains blurred.

False Promise to Marry under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023

With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) on July 1, 2024, replacing the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a new provision—Section 69 under Chapter V—has been introduced, addressing sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means.

Section 69 of BNS Says:

Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc.

Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.—“deceitful means” shall include inducement for, or false promise of employment or promotion, or marrying by suppressing identity.

Section 69 of BNS criminalizes sexual intercourse where consent is obtained either through a false promise of marriage made without genuine intent from the outset or through deception, such as concealing identity. Unlike the IPC, which treated such acts as rape under Sections 375 and 90, the BNS creates a distinct offence that no longer falls within the legal definition of rape. Instead, it is punishable with imprisonment of up to ten years and a fine payable to the aggrieved party.

The shift marks a significant legal and ethical departure. While rape under IPC inherently involved lack of valid consent, Section 69 of BNS focuses on the validity of consent when induced by fraud, thus creating a grey area between manipulative and genuinely intended relationships.

In Uday v. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court emphasized that cases involving alleged false promises of marriage require a nuanced, fact-based analysis. Courts must examine aspects such as the nature of communication, frequency of sexual relations, and the overall trajectory of the relationship.

A critical distinction exists between a false promise—made with no intent to marry from the beginning—and a genuine promise later broken due to unforeseen circumstances. The BNS, however, does not clearly differentiate between the two, potentially criminalizing conduct where no malice existed. For example, a man may genuinely propose marriage out of love, but later, due to mutual differences or unforeseen circumstances, the relationship ends.

The woman may then maliciously initiate proceedings under Section 69 of BNS, and unless the man proves the sincerity of his original intent, he risks conviction for a crime he did not commit.

Concluding

If you’re falsely accused under Section 69 BNS for false promise of marriage, don’t guess your next move. Know your rights. Know the law. Know what doesn’t fly in court anymore.