Marriage plan, hotel stay, then a mother’s refusal: NRI gets court relief

The woman alleged that the accused promised to marry her by December 2024. But he told her in January 2025 that his mother did not agree to the match and he would not marry her.

The man disputed the allegation that the relationship was founded on a false promise. His lawyer told the Gujarat High Court that the relationship was voluntary and pointed to his interactions with the woman’s mother and maternal aunt. According to submissions in the High Court, he also transferred Rs 40,000 to the woman’s mother and sent mobile phones and clothes worth about Rs 32,000 from Mumbai.

The High Court in May refused to intervene in the matter and quash the FIR against the man. The court held that “a distinction had to be drawn between a promise of marriage made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled and a promise made from the outset with no intention of marrying”. The court also said that the explanation that the man’s mother opposed the marriage could not be treated as “a bona fide reason”. It added that the man should have “taken the sense of the mother” before starting the relationship and his subsequent refusal “smokes of malafide motive”.

Hearing the man’s challenge against the High Court ruling, the Supreme Court bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that the complaint indicated a consensual relationship and did not disclose that the man used deceitful means to induce the woman into sexual intimacy.

In its September 7 order, the Supreme Court drew a comparison between the provisions under the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita that punishes sexual intercourse with a woman by using “deceitful means” or a “promise to marry”. The Supreme Court said the new provision notes the essential distinction between a promise that was dishonest from the beginning and one made in good faith but could not be fulfilled.

The order states, “The word employed ‘deceitful means or by making a promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same’ brings in the same rigor of the promise having been given with an intention of never being fulfilled, which is the deceitful conduct sought to be punished… (As per the FIR) the appellant communicated his desire to marry the complainant on the first physical meeting. The complainant is said to have succumbed to his entreaties and allowed sexual intercourse… the specific statement made without even stating that it was on the promise to marry that physical relationship was permitted.”

The Supreme Court held that the man’s mother opposed the marriage later and this did not indicate that he made the promise to marry dishonestly. The court observed that the allegation that he refused to marry because his mother did not permit it “indicates that the promise was made with all good intention, if at all it was made.” The court quashed the FIR registered against the man at Vadodara city.