Summary: The article by advocates Pasapala Syed Mustaq and Y. Balachander Reddy examines Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which criminalises sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or a promise to marry made without an intention of fulfilling it, where the conduct does not amount to rape. The authors explain that deceitful means include false promises of employment or promotion and marriage by suppressing identity. The provision prescribes imprisonment extending to ten years and a fine. They compare it with Sections 90 and 375 of the former Indian Penal Code and Section 81 of the BNS, focusing particularly on consent and live-in relationships. The authors question the constitutional validity of Section 69, arguing that its gender-specific operation may conflict with Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Referring to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India and Joseph Shine v. Union of India, they contend that criminal liability should not arise merely because a consensual relationship subsequently breaks down. They also raise concerns about the distinction between a deliberately false promise made at the outset and a genuine intention to marry that changes later. The article discusses decisions including Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra, Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P., Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, Akhil N.R. v. State of Kerala, Kunal Rameshbhai Kalayani v. State of Gujarat and Achal Singhal v. State of Karnataka. The authors rely on these decisions to emphasise the importance of examining initial dishonest intention, the circumstances surrounding consent and the distinction between criminal deception and a failed relationship. They conclude by advocating reconsideration of Section 69 on grounds of fairness, constitutional equality and the potential misuse of criminal proceedings. These constitutional objections are the authors’ views, not a judicial ruling striking down Section 69.
Introduction
Marriage in pursuant to every religion is holy but Muslim law take into account as contract but people tended to fix it as sanctified, many of them does not even know marriage is called as contract under Islamic law. From the perspective of Hindu law, marriage is also called as Vivaha, it is not a contract but a sacrament, it is not a ritual per se but it is a blessings, it is said that by way of marriage two individuals form a bond till death, unite not the body of the individuals but mind and soul. In Vayu Kishore vs State of Karnataka[1], the Division Bench of Summit Court of India quoted on marriage that“Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution?”.
The ethics of marriage is downtrodden in this days because of the provisions incorporated in the laws where viable to use it as a weapon to injure the life of another physically and mentally. In that aspect, the first in line would be of Section 85 and 86 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023( Hereinafter called as BNS,2023)and erstwhile repealed 498A IPC and Domestic Violence Act,2005 and second in line at present which is evolving is Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023( Hereinafter called as BNS,2023) which states sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means- as it popularly known as false promise to marry.
As this section falls within the ambit of Chapter V of BNS,2023 which exclusively deals about Of Offences Against Woman and Child Of Sexual Offences, it is crystal clear that Section 69 of BNS,2023 is against men and it is not gender neutral provision as such.
Section 69 of BNS,2023 can be delineate in two limbs, the first limb of the section deceitful means of having sexual intercourse or having sexual intercourse by promising to marry a women but not having any intention to fulfilling and further such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape. The whole section revolves around “Sexual Intercourse”, this sexual intercourse will take place whenever either both men and women or any one of them having sexual desire. The said section also defines the word “deceitful means”-shall include inducement for, or false promise of employment or promotion, or marrying by suppressing identity[2]. The punishment prescribed for culprit who is charged under this section 69 BNS,2023 imprisonment upto 10 years and shall also liable to pay fine, Cognizable and Non-Bailable. This section is new and it is applicable to those who are in so called “Live-in Relationship”. Earlier to come with the ambit of false promise of marriage, Section 90 r/w Section 375 of repealed Indian Penal Code,1860 were used. The point to be noted here is that, the police department were bluntly registering a case under Section 69 BNS,2023 but should also glance on Section 81 of BNS,2023 which states that “Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage[3] and earlier Code provision would be Section 493 of Indian Penal Code,1860. The above section revolves primary around the concept of Live-In relationship. The concept of Live-In relationship has not defined anywhere but it had unfolded through judicial verdicts. The Live-In relationship means that two people living in one and the same roof with consent without lawfully married. The word consent plays a crucial role in the aspect of Live-In relationship, from both the sides i.e., man and woman with consent living each other in one and the same roof. Once Live-In relationship turning into sour, the women who gave consent to live with men in the very same roof together has the remedy to file a complaint by invoking the above provisions against man but not vice versa that ultimately lead to discrimination against man, arbitrary and violative of fundaments rights.
Constitutionality of Section 69 BNS,2023
As we already supra about Section 69 BNS,2023 that this section falls within the ambit of Chapter V of BNS,2023 which exclusively deals about Of Offences Against Woman and Child Of Sexual Offences, it is crystal clear that Section 69 of BNS,2023 is against the men and it is not gender neutral provision as such. We would like to state that this provision is constitutionally impaired and not with consonance with Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India[4], (1978) 1 SCC 248 imparted Golden Triangle rule which states any provision or act should within the ambit of said rule and it should not violate Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The points to be highlighted to state that this section is Unconstitutional and liable to be struck down:
- In this present section, the woman given the whip hand to emotionally extortman when consensual relationship turned into sour.
- The section solely applicable against man in deceitful means of having sexual intercourse violates the principle of reasonable classification; hence it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
- The remedy is given according only to the woman but not to the man which according to Constitution violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Neither this section nor the BNS Act, 2023 defines the word “False promise of marriage” and what it amounts to False promise of marriage.
- This section violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India because it has not given a opportunity to the men to speak or express his concern instead it solely relies on the version of the woman though it may be false.
- Failed to give clarity on the word “Whoever” by which this provision commences.
To state that instances where Apex Court of India has struck down or held unconstitutional the provisions violates Golden Triangle i.e., Article 14,19 and 21, the first judgment in line is Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of IndiaMinistry of Law and other[5], opined that Section 377 of Indian Penal Code crystal clearly violates Golden Triangle because denying homosexual individuals equal protection of law, criminalizing private sexual with their will and wish and denying to live with dignity, privacy, sexual autonomy which is alienable right under Article 21 and the second judgment in the line isJoseph Shine vs Union Of India[6] held that Section 497 IPC only punishes male partner but not female partner though consensual activity occurred between them and criminalizing it violates individual dignity, personal liberty, and the right to sexual privacy inside the four walls, the same applies to Section 69 BNS,2023 where both the parties are having consensual activity for over a period of time out of the blue, the women comes and accusing the male stating he is denying for marriage, punishing male is arbitrary and discriminatory.
In Samadhan vs State of Maharasthra and Ors[7], the case is pertains to false promise of marriage, the Division Bench of the Apex Court of India headed by Hon’ble Justices B.V.Nagarathna and J.R.Mahadevan opined that the offence Rape, being of the gravest kind, must be involved only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent. To convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivializes the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice and further held that in situation where physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because of alleged promise made to her for marriage. Thus, unless it can be shown that the physical relationship was purely because of the promise of marriage, thereby having a direct nexus with the physical relationship without being influenced by any other consideration, it cannot be said that there was vitiation of consent under misconception of fact and also in Rajnish Singh @ Soni vs State of U.P.[8], the Summit Court of India held that unless it can be shown that the physical relationship was purely because of the promise of marriage, thereby having a direct nexus with the physical relationship without being influenced by any other consideration, it cannot be said that there was vitiation of consent under misconception of fact and further went ahead to state that the long gap of 16 years between the first alleged act of sexual intercourse, continued relations for one and a half decade till the filing of the FIR convinces us that it is a clear case of a love affair/live in relationship gone sour and further in Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs The State of Maharasthra[9], the summit Court of India opined that in 9th para of the judgment that “A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be ground for invoking criminal machinery of the state. Such conduct not only burden the Courts, but blots the idenetity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence”.
In Akhil N.R. vs State of Kerala[10], 2025 SCC Online Ker 5661, the Kerala High Court opined whilst granting anticipatory bail to the accused stated that where a woman is aware that the man is already married, such a promise cannot ordinarily be regarded as one capable of inducing a legally enforceable expectation of marriage, since a married man cannot marry during subsitence of the earlier marriage so as to commit the offence of bigamy. Thus, consensual sexual intercourse in such circumstances could not, at the prima facie stage, be treated as having been induced by deceitful means under Section 69 BNS,2023.
The Apex Court of India recently in Kunal Rameshbhai Kalayani vs State of Gujarat[11], had opined if there is no initial deceitful intent then the offence does not constitue and hence cannot be prosecuted under Section 69 BNS, 2023. The Karnataka High Court in Achal Singhal vs State of Karnataka and ors[12],highlighted the misuse of Section 69 BNS,2023 and further stated that if there is relationship break-up than Man In Lock-up, while dealing with bail who was in incarceration for a period of 42 days.
The section 69 BNS,2023 is using as a sword instead of shield by the women though being consensual act. It is said to be unconstitutional as it violates Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and it also lowering down the credibility of the marriage that may lead to adopt western culture in our country which is unaccepted because India has diverse culture, norms and traditions where every religion or region have their sect of customs and traditions for which our citizens of India still abiding to it. If the section 69BNS, 2023 as it remain may cause burden to Police and Courts and also degenerate the value of the marriage.
[1]Vayu Kishore vs State of Karnataka, 2026 INSC 1130
[2]https://devgan.in/bns/section/69/
[3]https://devgan.in/bns/section/81/
[4]Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
[5]Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of IndiaMinistry of Law and other, 2019(1) SCC (CRI) 1
[6]Joseph Shine vs Union Of India-(2019) 3 SCC 39
[7]Samadhan vs State of Maharasthra and Ors, 2025 SCC Online SC 2528
[8]Rajnish Singh @ Soni vs State of U.P.,(2025) 4 SCC 197
[9]Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs The State of Maharasthra, 2025 SCC Online SC 1230
[10]Akhil N.R. vs State of Kerala, 2025 SCC Online Ker 5661
[11]Kunal Rameshbhai Kalayani vs State of Gujarat, 2026 SCC Online SC 1818
[12]Achal Singhal vs State of Karnataka and ors, CRLP No.4961/2026
****
Author: Pasapala Syed Mustaq, B.A., LL.B. (Hons.), LL.M., Advocate, Andhra Pradesh High Court and District Court, Allagadda.
Co-Author: Y. Balachander Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., LL.M. (Corporate and Securities Laws), LL.M. (IPR), Advocate, Telangana High Court.
The views expressed by the authors are exclusively personal and doesn’t constitute any legal advice.
