Refusing to Marry Over Kundali Mismatch After Sexual Relationship Is an Offence: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court in Jayant Vats v State (NCT of Delhi) has held that refusing to marry a woman on the ground of kundali mismatch, after establishing physical relations on the promise of marriage, can amount to an offence under criminal law.

The Court was considering a bail plea filed by a man accused of rape and of inducing sexual relations through a false promise of marriage. The prosecution alleged that the accused had been in a long relationship with the complainant and repeatedly assured her that he would marry her.

The woman claimed that the accused engaged in physical relations with her after promising marriage. She also stated that she had once withdrawn an earlier complaint when fresh assurances were given by the accused and his family.

However, the accused later refused to marry her, stating that their horoscopes did not match. This, according to the complainant, was contrary to his earlier claims that there was no obstacle to their marriage.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma examined the material placed on record, including WhatsApp chats. The messages allegedly showed that the accused had told the woman their horoscopes were compatible and even suggested that the marriage was imminent.

In one of the chats, the accused reportedly said, “kal hi shaadi kar rahe hain hum (we are getting married tomorrow),” indicating that the marriage was certain. The Court noted that such statements projected a clear assurance.

While refusing bail, the Court observed that a later refusal to marry on the ground of kundali mismatch raised serious questions about the genuineness of the promise. If horoscope matching was crucial, it should have been resolved before entering into a physical relationship.

The Court held that such conduct, at this stage, would attract the offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with sexual relations induced by deceit or false assurance of marriage.

It further noted that the facts suggested that the woman’s consent may have been obtained based on a promise that was not genuine. This was sufficient to deny bail at the present stage.

Accordingly, the bail plea was rejected. The case will now proceed before the trial court in accordance with law.

The ruling highlights that personal beliefs, including horoscope matching, cannot be used as a shield if they are raised only after repeated assurances of marriage and establishment of physical relations.

This judgement reinforces that courts will closely examine the intention behind promises of marriage, especially where consent is linked to such assurances.