HP High Court: Promise Marriage Invalid If Both Already Married

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that a promise of marriage is not legally valid if both parties are already married to others and aware of each other's marital status.
• This decision, in the case of Vinod Kumar v State of Himachal Pradesh, led to bail being granted to an astrologer accused of sexual assault on a false promise of marriage.
• The court found no 'deceitful sexual intercourse' under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita because neither party had divorced their respective spouses.
• The complainant, a 31-year-old woman, was married in 2017 and separated from her husband before meeting the accused.

The court's reasoning hinged on the fundamental impossibility of solemnizing a marriage under such circumstances.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently issued a significant ruling clarifying the parameters of "deceitful sexual intercourse" under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). In a decision dated September 3, Justice Sandeep Sharma, presiding over the case of Vinod Kumar v State of Himachal Pradesh, determined that a promise of marriage cannot constitute a valid basis for this offense when both the accused and the alleged victim are already married to other individuals and are mutually aware of their respective marital statuses. This judgment led to the granting of bail for the accused astrologer, Vinod Kumar, who was facing charges related to an alleged promise of marriage.

The court's reasoning hinged on the fundamental impossibility of solemnizing a marriage under such circumstances. Justice Sharma explicitly noted that since neither party had obtained a divorce from their existing spouses, any purported promise to marry was inherently void and legally unenforceable. This finding directly impacts the legal interpretation of what constitutes a "false promise of marriage" in cases alleging sexual assault, particularly when prior marital commitments are a known and undissolved factor for both individuals involved. The court emphasized that the mutual knowledge of existing marriages negated the very premise of a legitimate promise.

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) filed on June 22, 2026, which accused Vinod Kumar, an astrologer, of sexual assault. The complaint was lodged by a 31-year-old woman who alleged that the sexual intercourse occurred under the false premise of marriage. This charge falls under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, a provision specifically addressing sexual intercourse achieved through deceitful means, including a promise of marriage that is not intended to be kept.

Further details revealed that the complainant had married in 2017 but subsequently separated from her husband due to ongoing matrimonial disputes. She later met the accused, an astrologer. Crucially, during their interactions, both the woman and Vinod Kumar were married to other people, and both were fully aware of each other's existing marital ties. Neither individual had initiated or completed divorce proceedings from their respective spouses before the alleged events transpired.

This ruling from the Himachal Pradesh High Court provides important guidance on the application of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 69, particularly concerning situations where a promise of marriage is made by individuals already bound by other marital unions. The court's stance establishes that if both parties involved in a relationship are aware that they are married to others and have not divorced, there can be no legitimate "promise to marry" in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the act of sexual intercourse, even if predicated on such a statement, may not qualify as "deceitful sexual intercourse" as defined by the statute, thereby impacting cases of rape on false promise of marriage India.

The decision underscores that the legal validity and feasibility of a promise of marriage are paramount when assessing charges under this section. By granting bail to Vinod Kumar, the court indicated that the absence of a legal capacity to marry, coupled with mutual knowledge of this incapacity, fundamentally undermines the premise of deceit in such allegations. This precedent will likely influence future cases involving similar circumstances, requiring careful consideration of the marital status of all parties involved and their awareness of each other's marital situations. The ruling clarifies that a promise of marriage already married individuals cannot legally form the basis of a deceit charge under BNS Section 69.

This ruling clarifies the interpretation of 'deceitful sexual intercourse' under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, establishing that a promise of marriage is not legally valid if both parties are already married and aware of each other's marital status. Lawyers should consider this precedent when advising clients or strategizing defense in cases involving alleged sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage, particularly where prior marital status is a factor.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlet