Refusing to marry due to 'kundali' mismatch after being physically intimate can lead to criminal charges, Delhi High Court says

Representative image

• Delhi HC denies bail to man accused of false marriage promise
• Court: Repeatedly refusing after assurances may lead to criminal charges
• Accused cited kundali mismatch after assuring marriage

Did our AI summary help?

The Delhi High Court has refused bail to a man accused of entering into a physical relationship with a woman on the promise of marriage and later backing out, citing a mismatch of ‘kundalis’.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while rejecting the plea, observed that refusing to marry on the ground of horoscope incompatibility after giving repeated assurances could attract criminal liability under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The accused has been in judicial custody since January 4. Seeking regular bail, his counsel argued that the relationship between the two was consensual and that they had known each other for eight years. It was contended that rape on the false pretext of marriage was not applicable in the present case.

The court, however, examined the sequence of events leading up to the FIR. It noted that the woman had initially filed a complaint in November 2025 but withdrew it after the accused and his family allegedly assured her that the marriage would go ahead. Subsequently, when the accused declined to marry her on the ground that their birth charts did not match, she lodged a fresh FIR in January 2026 invoking Section 376 of the IPC and Section 69 of the BNS.

In its February 17 order, the court said the facts did not suggest merely a failed relationship. Instead, it pointed to repeated assurances of marriage despite the accused being aware of his family’s insistence on ‘kundali’-matching. The judge recorded that this was not simply a case of a “relationship turning sour" but raised serious concerns about the genuineness of the promise made to the woman.

The court emphasised that criminal law cannot be invoked merely because a relationship fails or a marriage does not materialise. However, it held that the subsequent refusal to marry based on non-matching ‘kundalis’, despite earlier assurances to the contrary, called into question the nature of the promise. At this stage, such conduct would attract the offence under Section 69 of the BNS.

Dismissing the bail application, the court cited the gravity of the allegations, the material collected during the investigation, and the fact that the chargesheet has not yet been filed.