Legal Challenges of False Marriage Promises Under New Law

Source: The post Legal Challenges of False Marriage Promises Under New Law has been created, based on the article “Section 69 of the BNS is redundant” published in “The Hindu” on 23 April 2025. Legal Challenges of False Marriage Promises Under New Law.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2-Parliament (Law and Justice)

Context: The legal treatment of sexual relationships based on a false promise of marriage has sparked debate. Critics argue the law sometimes undermines women’s consent and is misused. Despite expectations of reform, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 introduced a new Section 69 addressing this issue separately from the definition of rape.

For detailed information on On the crime of ‘false promise to marry’ read this article here

Judicial Limits on False Promise Cases

1. Intent to Marry Must Be Absent from the Start: The Supreme Court has clarified that not all unfulfilled marriage promises amount to rape. In Anurag Soni v. The State of Chhattisgarh (2019), the Court ruled that rape is only established if the man had no intention to marry right from the beginning. If circumstances changed later, it does not constitute rape.
2. Consent Must Be Directly Tied to Deceit: Courts have stated that when a woman continues a long-term relationship, the physical intimacy must be clearly caused by the false promise. In Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. (2025), a 15-year relationship was found consensual and not induced by deception, especially as the woman often portrayed herself as the man’s wife.
3. Married Woman’s Consent Not Based on Misconception: In Abhishek Arjariya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2025), the High Court ruled that if a woman is already married, then her consent on the basis of a false promise of marriage does not fall under “misconception of fact”. The FIR was quashed accordingly.

Understanding Section 69 of the BNS

1. New Standalone Offence Introduced: Section 69 punishes sexual intercourse by deceit, including false promises of marriage, identity suppression, or false job offers. The punishment may extend to 10 years in prison and a fine. This offence did not exist in the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Consent and Rape Definitions Remain Unchanged: Despite introducing Section 69, the BNS retains the previous definitions. Section 63 defines rape, while Section 28 explains that consent obtained through “misconception of fact”—which includes false promises—vitiates valid consent.

Overlap and Legal Concerns

1. Redundancy of Section 69: Since false promise of marriage is already covered under “rape” via misconception of fact, Section 69 becomes redundant. It introduces a lesser punishment for the same act, leading to legal confusion.
2. Violation of Article 14 Likely: Section 69 lacks a non-obstante clause or exception under Section 63. This creates legal overlap, which could violate Article 14 of the Constitution (equality before law).

Need for Procedural Caution

1. Preliminary Inquiry Advised: As courts increasingly quash such FIRs, it is advised that police conduct preliminary inquiries. This would prevent hardship, reduce misuse, and save judicial resources.

Question for practice:

Examine the judicial and legal challenges associated with Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in cases of false promise of marriage.