Introduction
The Kerala High Court in XXX v. State of Kerala (Bail Appl. 9593/2025) ruled that allegations of sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage cannot stand when the complainant is already in a valid, subsisting marriage. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the ruling while granting regular bail to the petitioner. The Court clarified that such allegations collapse legally because a promise of marriage is impossible when one party is already married.
Background
False promise of marriage allegations have become frequent in Indian criminal jurisprudence. These cases usually arise when a person claims they were induced into a sexual relationship based on the accused’s promise to marry. Courts often examine whether the promise was genuine, whether consent was obtained through deception, and if the circumstances amount to rape or cheating under criminal law.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) under Section 69 addresses consent obtained under a misconception of fact, which includes cases of false promises of marriage. However, courts have consistently warned against misuse of this provision. The Supreme Court, in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), held that not every breach of promise amounts to rape. The promise must be false from the beginning and must directly influence the victim’s decision to consent.
This Kerala High Court ruling adds another layer to the jurisprudence by holding that such allegations cannot survive if the complainant is already married, since marriage with another person is legally impossible.
Main Story
The case involved a man accused of engaging in sexual relations with a woman on the assurance of marrying her. The woman later alleged that the accused misled her with a false promise, and based on her complaint, criminal proceedings were initiated. The accused applied for regular bail before the High Court.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas examined whether the allegations, on their face, disclosed an offence under Section 69 BNS. The Court noted that the complainant was already in a subsisting marriage at the time of the alleged relationship. Hence, the promise of marriage was inherently incapable of being fulfilled.
The Court found that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was unnecessary. It granted bail subject to standard conditions, including cooperation with the investigation and a restriction against contacting the complainant.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized that a false promise of marriage charge must rest on the possibility of marriage. If marriage is legally impossible due to the complainant’s subsisting marriage, then the allegation becomes unsustainable.
Justice Thomas observed that consent to sexual intercourse cannot be said to flow from a promise that has no legal foundation. A married person cannot lawfully contract another marriage without dissolution of the first. Therefore, alleging that sexual intercourse occurred under such a promise does not establish an offence of rape or cheating under BNS.
The Court relied on the principle laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), which held that courts must carefully evaluate the probability of allegations before denying liberty. Applying this, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and bail was granted.
Implications
This ruling has significant implications in criminal law and matrimonial jurisprudence.
- Clarity on Consent in False Promise Cases: The decision clarifies that allegations based on impossible promises do not constitute valid grounds for prosecution under Section 69 BNS.
- Protection Against Misuse of Law: The judgment acts as a safeguard against frivolous or malicious complaints, ensuring that individuals are not dragged into prolonged criminal trials on unsustainable grounds.
- Guidance for Future Cases: Trial courts in Kerala and beyond can now use this ruling as a precedent to filter out legally untenable cases at the bail stage itself.
- Impact on Gender Justice Debate: The ruling may spark debates around the balance between protecting women from exploitation and preventing misuse of rape laws. Courts will now have to ensure that genuine cases are distinguished from those that hinge on legally impossible promises.
- Emphasis on Legal Feasibility: The judgment highlights that consent obtained on the basis of a promise must rest on a legally valid possibility. Promises incapable of fulfillment cannot create grounds for criminal liability.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court’s decision in XXX v. State of Kerala marks an important precedent in false promise of marriage cases. The Court held that when a complainant is already in a valid marriage, allegations of a false promise of marriage cannot sustain because such a promise is legally impossible.
This ruling reinforces the importance of legal feasibility in determining consent under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It also underlines the judiciary’s role in preventing misuse of sensitive criminal provisions while upholding personal liberty.
As cases of false promise allegations continue to rise, this judgment provides much-needed clarity and balance in interpreting consent, deception, and criminal liability in intimate relationships.
