Delhi High Court: ‘Kundali’ Mismatch Refusal Following Intimacy Triggers Section 69 BNS

In a precedent-setting observation, the Delhi High Court has ruled that refusing to marry a woman due to a ‘Kundali’ (horoscope) mismatch, after establishing a physical relationship based on a promise of marriage, can lead to criminal charges under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while denying bail to an accused in the case of Jayant Vats v. State (NCT of Delhi), clarified that the newly enacted BNS provides a specific framework to punish sexual intercourse obtained through “deceitful means,” which includes false assurances of marriage.

The Conflict: Consensual Relationship vs. Deceitful Promise

The accused, Jayant Vats, had been in a relationship with the complainant for approximately eight years. He sought bail on the grounds that the relationship was consensual and that its failure was merely a “relationship turning sour” rather than a criminal offense. However, the Court’s scrutiny of the timeline revealed a more calculated pattern of behavior.

Justice Sharma noted that the accused had repeatedly assured the woman that there were no impediments to their marriage—specifically claiming that their birth charts had already matched. In one WhatsApp exchange dated September 2023, the accused allegedly stated, “Kal hi shaadi kar rahe hain hum” (We are getting married tomorrow), projecting an imminent union. The Court observed:

“The subsequent refusal to marry on the ground of non-matching of kundalis, despite earlier assurances to the contrary, prima facie raises a question as to the nature and genuineness of the promise extended by the applicant.”

Understanding Section 69 of the BNS

Under the previous Indian Penal Code (IPC), cases of “sex on false promise of marriage” were often prosecuted under Section 376 (Rape). However, Section 69 of the BNS (introduced in 2023 and effective in 2024) creates a distinct, standalone offense for “sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means.”

The Threshold of “Deceitful Means”

The Court highlighted a crucial distinction: criminal law cannot be invoked simply because a relationship fails or marriage does not materialize. For a case to attract Section 69 BNS, there must be evidence that the promise was false from the very inception or that the accused intended to deceive the woman to obtain sexual favors.

In this specific case, the Court found the accused’s conduct suspicious because:

1. Prior Knowledge: The accused was aware of his family’s insistence on horoscope matching from the beginning.
2. False Representation: He misled the woman by stating the horoscopes had already matched to continue the physical relationship.
3. Induced Withdrawal: The woman had previously lodged a complaint in November 2025, which she withdrew only after fresh assurances of marriage were given—assurances that were later retracted using the ‘kundali’ excuse.

Also Read: Supreme Court Holds Surviving Partner Liable for Abetment in Suicide Pact

Judicial Perspective on Personal Autonomy

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s ruling underscores that while adult autonomy in relationships is respected, the law will step in when that autonomy is compromised by fraud. If a social or religious factor (like horoscope matching) is of “determinative importance” to a party, the Court held it must be settled at the threshold of the relationship, not used as an exit strategy after years of intimacy.

The Court concluded that the sequence of events suggested “calculated deception” rather than an unforeseen change of heart. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, and the accused remains in judicial custody as the investigation continues