The Delhi High Court has recently refused to grant bail to a man accused of establishing a long-term relationship with his partner based on false promises of marriage, only to back out citing “kundali mismatch.” The court’s decision was grounded in the view that the accused’s conduct could attract provisions under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with acts of deception.
The case revolves around a woman who alleged that her relationship with the accused began in 2018 during their college days. Over the years, their association reportedly deepened, with the woman claiming that her family was led to believe that marriage was imminent. According to her, the accused repeatedly assured her and her family of marriage, even exchanging rings and discussing horoscopes to ensure compatibility. These assurances created an emotional and psychological bond, which the woman relied upon deeply.
However, the relationship took a turn when the accused allegedly backed out, citing “kundali mismatch” — a common reason in Indian culture for rejecting potential marriage partners based on astrological compatibility. The woman argued that this excuse was a pretext to break off the relationship after years of false promises, causing her emotional distress and financial loss.
The woman approached the court seeking justice, claiming that the accused’s actions amounted to deception and breach of trust. The prosecution argued that the repeated assurances, coupled with the eventual withdrawal based on flimsy grounds, could be considered a form of cheating under Indian law.
The Delhi High Court, in its judgment, emphasized that when a person repeatedly reaffirms promises and then withdraws on contradictory or fabricated grounds, it may constitute prima facie an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. This section addresses acts of deception and misrepresentation that lead to wrongful gains or cause harm to others.
The court observed that the accused’s conduct appeared to be deliberate and calculated, especially given the emotional investments made by the woman over several years. It further noted that granting bail at this stage could undermine the seriousness of the allegations, particularly when the case involves allegations of deceit and breach of trust.
Legal experts say that this case underscores the importance of honesty and transparency in personal relationships, especially when promises of marriage are involved. It also highlights the courts’ approach towards cases where emotional manipulations are alleged to have been used to induce trust and obtain benefits under false pretenses.
The court’s decision to deny bail reflects its cautious stance on protecting victims of alleged deception and ensuring that justice is served. The accused remains in custody as the investigation continues, and the trial is expected to examine the evidence in detail to establish whether his actions amount to criminal deception under applicable laws.
This case has garnered attention for its sensitive nature, touching upon issues of trust, cultural expectations, and the legal implications of broken promises in personal relationships. It also raises questions about the extent to which legal recourse can be used in cases of emotional betrayal, especially when cultural and astrological factors are cited as reasons for ending relationships.