Know your laws: When a promise of marriage can amount to rape
The Karnataka High Court questioned the arrest of the accused's brother in a rape case, bringing renewed attention to legal principles governing consent, false promises of marriage and family members' liability.
The Karnataka High Court's recent criticism of the police for arresting the brother of a man accused of rape on the false promise of marriage has once again drawn attention to one of India's most debated areas of criminal law: when consent obtained on a promise of marriage amounts to rape, and whether relatives can be prosecuted alongside the accused.
During the hearing, the High Court questioned the investigating officers over why the accused's brother had been arrested while the principal accused himself had not been taken into custody. The observations have reignited concerns over the practice of implicating family members as co-conspirators or for allegedly abetting the offence, even though the alleged sexual relationship is between two consenting adults.
Indian courts have, over the years, developed a nuanced jurisprudence distinguishing between a genuine promise to marry that later fails and a false promise made from the outset solely to obtain consent for sexual intercourse.
The Supreme Court first expanded the concept of "misconception of fact" under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in Pradeep Kumar v. State of Bihar (2007), holding that consent obtained through deceit or misrepresentation could be legally invalid. Since intention is itself treated as a fact under the Indian Evidence Act, a promise of marriage made only to deceive a woman into a sexual relationship could vitiate her consent.
Earlier, in Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar (2004), the Supreme Court held that consent secured on the basis of a false promise of marriage would not constitute valid consent. The principle was reaffirmed in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naushad (2013), where the court ruled that if the accused never intended to honour the promise at the time it was made, the woman's consent was obtained under a misconception of fact and could amount to rape.
In Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019), the Supreme Court further observed that such conduct could also constitute cheating under Section 417 IPC, in addition to rape.
At the same time, the judiciary has repeatedly cautioned that every failed relationship cannot be criminalised. In Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003), the Supreme Court held that where two adults are in a consensual relationship and the promise of marriage was genuine when made, a subsequent failure to marry would not automatically amount to rape. Similarly, in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, the court stressed that judges must distinguish between a false promise made in bad faith and a mere breach of promise arising from unforeseen circumstances.
The distinction has become even more significant following the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which separately criminalises sexual intercourse by deceitful means under Section 69.
Legal experts say that while the law is intended to protect women from sexual exploitation through deception, courts have increasingly insisted on strict scrutiny before extending criminal liability to family members.
Advocate Apoorva Pandey Bassi says courts have consistently rejected attempts to automatically implicate relatives merely because they are related to the accused.
"Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has been unequivocal: intimacy is a private act between two people, not a family enterprise. Courts have repeatedly cautioned against turning family members into collateral damage in what is, at its core, a dispute between two adults. Kinship is not culpability, and sympathy for a relationship gone wrong cannot substitute for individualised proof of wrongdoing against people who were never party to the physical relationship itself," she says.
On safeguards against misuse, Bassi says the Supreme Court has evolved clear principles centred on the accused's intention at the inception of the relationship.
"The touchstone is whether the promise was hollow from day one, or whether life simply intervened. Courts insist that a mere breach of promise, however distressing, does not amount to rape; only a promise made in bad faith solely to obtain consent crosses that line," she explains. According to her, courts also examine the complainant's maturity, the duration of the relationship, and whether the consent was based solely on deception or arose from a voluntary romantic relationship.
On allegations of conspiracy or abetment against family members, Bassi says the threshold is considerably higher. "Courts demand tangible proof of active, intentional participation in the deception, not mere presence at the periphery of a promise. Encouragement, sympathy, or even a family's blessing for a future marriage cannot, without more, be dressed up as criminal conspiracy."
Dr Gurmeet Nehra, Assistant Professor at SRM University, says courts have increasingly differentiated between cases involving deception and those involving failed relationships.
"The courts distinguish between a false promise to marry and a subsequent failure or mere breach of promise. Factors such as the nature and duration of the relationship, as well as the parties' legal capacity to marry, are carefully examined," he says, pointing to the Supreme Court's decision in Jaspal Singh Kaural v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025).
He adds that courts have also discouraged the routine prosecution of family members. "Family members can be prosecuted only when there is direct and strong evidence against them. There is no automatic targeting of families."
According to Nehra, courts continue to evaluate each case on its own facts, particularly whether the consent at the time of the sexual relationship was genuine. "If the consent was valid and the marriage did not take place because of changed circumstances, it cannot automatically be treated as rape. Where relationships have continued for years or the parties lived together, courts have often viewed them as consensual rather than cases of deception."
The Karnataka High Court's recent observations, legal experts say, reinforce the judiciary's consistent position that while deception must be punished, criminal law cannot be stretched to presume guilt against family members without concrete evidence of their active involvement.
The Karnataka High Court's recent criticism of the police for arresting the brother of a man accused of rape on the false promise of marriage has once again drawn attention to one of India's most debated areas of criminal law: when consent obtained on a promise of marriage amounts to rape, and whether relatives can be prosecuted alongside the accused.
During the hearing, the High Court questioned the investigating officers over why the accused's brother had been arrested while the principal accused himself had not been taken into custody. The observations have reignited concerns over the practice of implicating family members as co-conspirators or for allegedly abetting the offence, even though the alleged sexual relationship is between two consenting adults.
Indian courts have, over the years, developed a nuanced jurisprudence distinguishing between a genuine promise to marry that later fails and a false promise made from the outset solely to obtain consent for sexual intercourse.
The Supreme Court first expanded the concept of "misconception of fact" under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in Pradeep Kumar v. State of Bihar (2007), holding that consent obtained through deceit or misrepresentation could be legally invalid. Since intention is itself treated as a fact under the Indian Evidence Act, a promise of marriage made only to deceive a woman into a sexual relationship could vitiate her consent.
Earlier, in Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar (2004), the Supreme Court held that consent secured on the basis of a false promise of marriage would not constitute valid consent. The principle was reaffirmed in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naushad (2013), where the court ruled that if the accused never intended to honour the promise at the time it was made, the woman's consent was obtained under a misconception of fact and could amount to rape.
In Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019), the Supreme Court further observed that such conduct could also constitute cheating under Section 417 IPC, in addition to rape.
At the same time, the judiciary has repeatedly cautioned that every failed relationship cannot be criminalised. In Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003), the Supreme Court held that where two adults are in a consensual relationship and the promise of marriage was genuine when made, a subsequent failure to marry would not automatically amount to rape. Similarly, in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, the court stressed that judges must distinguish between a false promise made in bad faith and a mere breach of promise arising from unforeseen circumstances.
The distinction has become even more significant following the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which separately criminalises sexual intercourse by deceitful means under Section 69.
Legal experts say that while the law is intended to protect women from sexual exploitation through deception, courts have increasingly insisted on strict scrutiny before extending criminal liability to family members.
Advocate Apoorva Pandey Bassi says courts have consistently rejected attempts to automatically implicate relatives merely because they are related to the accused.
"Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has been unequivocal: intimacy is a private act between two people, not a family enterprise. Courts have repeatedly cautioned against turning family members into collateral damage in what is, at its core, a dispute between two adults. Kinship is not culpability, and sympathy for a relationship gone wrong cannot substitute for individualised proof of wrongdoing against people who were never party to the physical relationship itself," she says.
On safeguards against misuse, Bassi says the Supreme Court has evolved clear principles centred on the accused's intention at the inception of the relationship.
"The touchstone is whether the promise was hollow from day one, or whether life simply intervened. Courts insist that a mere breach of promise, however distressing, does not amount to rape; only a promise made in bad faith solely to obtain consent crosses that line," she explains. According to her, courts also examine the complainant's maturity, the duration of the relationship, and whether the consent was based solely on deception or arose from a voluntary romantic relationship.
On allegations of conspiracy or abetment against family members, Bassi says the threshold is considerably higher. "Courts demand tangible proof of active, intentional participation in the deception, not mere presence at the periphery of a promise. Encouragement, sympathy, or even a family's blessing for a future marriage cannot, without more, be dressed up as criminal conspiracy."
Dr Gurmeet Nehra, Assistant Professor at SRM University, says courts have increasingly differentiated between cases involving deception and those involving failed relationships.
"The courts distinguish between a false promise to marry and a subsequent failure or mere breach of promise. Factors such as the nature and duration of the relationship, as well as the parties' legal capacity to marry, are carefully examined," he says, pointing to the Supreme Court's decision in Jaspal Singh Kaural v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025).
He adds that courts have also discouraged the routine prosecution of family members. "Family members can be prosecuted only when there is direct and strong evidence against them. There is no automatic targeting of families."
According to Nehra, courts continue to evaluate each case on its own facts, particularly whether the consent at the time of the sexual relationship was genuine. "If the consent was valid and the marriage did not take place because of changed circumstances, it cannot automatically be treated as rape. Where relationships have continued for years or the parties lived together, courts have often viewed them as consensual rather than cases of deception."
The Karnataka High Court's recent observations, legal experts say, reinforce the judiciary's consistent position that while deception must be punished, criminal law cannot be stretched to presume guilt against family members without concrete evidence of their active involvement.
