How Courts Test False Promise to Marry Cases | Explained

Learn how courts test false promise to marry cases under Section 69 BNS. Understand consent, intention, evidence, and key legal tests that protect men from false accusations.

False promise to marry cases create immediate panic for men and their families. The fear is often driven by a misunderstanding that if marriage did not happen, criminal liability automatically follows.

This is legally incorrect.

Indian courts, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, follow a well-settled judicial test to distinguish between:

— a genuine but failed relationship, and
— a criminal act of sexual exploitation by deception

This test has now been statutorily reinforced under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Core Legal Question Courts Ask

Courts do not ask whether marriage happened.
They ask why consent was given and what the accused intended at the very beginning.

The central question is:

Was the promise of marriage false from the inception and made only to obtain consent?

If the answer is no, the case usually fails.

How Courts Test False Promise to Marry Cases?

This is a practical legal guide designed to explain and navigate the False promise to marry legal test under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, offering clear insights into its scope, application, and legal implications.

Courts first examine whether a clear and specific promise of marriage existed before the first act of physical intimacy.

Key points courts look for:

— Was the promise explicit or vague
— Was it made before intimacy or after
— Is there any message, recording, or conduct proving it
— Or is it an assumption based on emotional expectations

Mere discussions about marriage, future plans, or emotional bonding do not amount to a legal promise.

Test 2 – Was the Promise False From the Very Beginning?

This is the most crucial test under Section 69 BNS.

Courts ask:

— Did the accused never intend to marry at all
— Was the promise only a tool to obtain sexual consent
— Was there deception at the time consent was given

If the relationship was entered into genuinely and later failed due to circumstances, incompatibility, or family pressure, criminal intent is not established.

A broken promise is not the same as a false promise.

Test 3 – Was Consent Given Only Because of That Promise?

Courts closely examine why the woman consented.

They ask:

— Would the complainant have consented even without the promise
— Was the relationship emotionally and physically mutual
— Did intimacy continue independently of marriage discussions

If consent flowed from love, affection, or mutual desire, Section 69 BNS does not apply.

Consent given willingly cannot be retrospectively withdrawn.

Test 4 – Duration and Nature of the Relationship

Courts consider the overall trajectory of the relationship:

— Length of relationship
— Frequency of meetings
— Voluntary travel and stays
— Emotional and physical continuity
— Behaviour before and after intimacy

Long-term, stable relationships strongly indicate consensual involvement, not deception.

Short-term inducement cases are treated differently.

Test 5 – Conduct After the Alleged Incident

Post-incident conduct is often decisive.

Courts examine:

— Whether communication continued
— Nature of messages after intimacy
— Delay in lodging FIR
— Whether there was immediate protest or complaint

Continued normal communication, affection, or planning after the alleged act seriously weakens false promise allegations.

Test 6 – Delay in Filing the Complaint

Delay alone does not defeat a case, but unexplained delay matters.

Courts ask:

— Why was FIR not lodged immediately
— What changed between the incident and complaint
— Did the relationship end during this period

If FIR follows a breakup rather than the alleged act, courts view allegations with caution.

Test 7 – Digital and Documentary Evidence

In modern cases, courts heavily rely on:

— WhatsApp chats
— Emails
— Call records
— Travel details
— Medical records

Messages showing affection, planning, or normalcy carry more weight than later oral allegations.

This is why preservation of digital evidence is critical for accused men.

Test 8 – Education, Age, and Autonomy of Parties

Courts consider whether both parties were:

— Adults
— Educated
— Independent decision-makers

An educated adult is presumed capable of understanding relationship risks. Courts do not treat such individuals as legally helpless.

What Courts Do Not Accept

Courts have consistently rejected:

— “Marriage did not happen, so it is rape”
— “Relationship failed, so consent was invalid”
— “Emotional hurt equals criminal offence”

Criminal law is not a remedy for heartbreak.

How Section 69 BNS Changes and Clarifies the Law

Section 69 BNS codifies what courts have long held:

— Deception must exist at inception
— Intention is the foundation of the offence
— Failure of marriage alone is irrelevant
— Consent obtained genuinely is valid consent

This provision protects genuine victims and safeguards against misuse.

Guidance for Men Accused Under Section 69 BNS

If you are accused:

— Do not panic
— Do not assume guilt
— Do not destroy digital evidence
— Do not give emotional statements to police

Courts test facts, conduct, and intention, not allegations alone.

When evidence shows a consensual relationship, courts do intervene.

Recommended reading: If you’re new to Section 69 BNS, first check out our detailed guide on What is Section 69 BNS in India? Full Legal Explanation.

Conclusion

False promise to marry cases are decided on intention, evidence, and conduct, not on the outcome of a relationship. Understanding how courts test these cases is the first step toward protecting your rights under Section 69 BNS. Law punishes deception, not failed love.

 Readers who wish to stay updated on developments related to Section 69 BNS, may join our legal awareness WhatsApp community by clicking here. Stay informed. Stay ahead.

Disclaimer: This article is for legal awareness and general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every Section 69 BNS case is fact specific and each legal situation is unique. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking independent professional legal advice.