Kerala High Court: BNS 69 Live-In Deceit Prima Facie Attracted

• The Kerala High Court ruled that concealing a live-in relationship and a child from a prospective spouse can prima facie constitute "sex by deceitful means" under BNS Section 69.
• This observation was made by Justice A Badharudeen while dismissing an anticipatory bail plea from a man accused of such deceit in the case of Udayan v XXX & ors.
• The accused was booked under BNS Sections 318(4) and 69, and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, following a complaint from a woman whose marriage was fixed with him.
• The complainant's family spent ₹10 lakh on a marriage-fixation ceremony before discovering the accused's undisclosed live-in relationship and three-year-old child.
• The ruling provides an early interpretation of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita regarding non-disclosure in marital contexts.

By affirming that concealing an existing live-in relationship and a child from a prospective spouse can prima facie attract this section, the court has broadened the understanding of what constitutes 'deceitful means' in the context of criminal law.

The Kerala High Court recently issued a significant ruling, determining that the concealment of an existing live-in relationship and a child born from it, prior to entering into a marriage with another woman, could prima facie attract Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023. This section specifically criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or by making a false promise to marry. The observation was made by Justice A Badharudeen in the case of Udayan v XXX & ors, during the dismissal of an appeal for anticipatory bail filed by a man facing these allegations.

The legal action stemmed from a complaint lodged by a woman at the Feroke Police Station in Kozhikode. The complainant, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste community, alleged that the accused had entered into a marriage arrangement with her without disclosing critical personal information. She claimed that he had hidden the fact that he was already in a live-in relationship with another woman and had a three-year-old child from that union.

According to the complaint, the accused and the de-facto complainant had agreed to marry, and a formal marriage-fixation ceremony had taken place. The complainant's family reportedly spent a sum of ₹10 lakh on this ceremony. Following the fixing of the marriage, the de-facto complainant traveled to Wayanad at the accused's request, where she subsequently stayed with him in a hotel.

The man involved in the case was booked under multiple legal provisions. These included Section 318(4) of the BNS, which addresses cheating, and crucially, Section 69 of the BNS, which pertains to sexual intercourse achieved through deceitful means or a false promise to marry. Additionally, charges were filed under Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, reflecting the complainant's community status.

Justice A Badharudeen's observation was part of his decision to reject the accused's appeal against the denial of his anticipatory bail plea. The court's stance indicates a broad interpretation of what constitutes 'deceitful means' within the framework of marital promises and relationships under the new criminal code. The ruling suggests that withholding information about a significant prior relationship and offspring, especially when a marriage is being arranged, can fall squarely within the ambit of criminal deception leading to sexual intercourse.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, which has replaced the Indian Penal Code, introduces new definitions and expands the scope of certain offenses. This particular interpretation by the Kerala High Court regarding BNS Section 69 live-in deceit provides an early judicial clarification on how the new law might be applied in cases involving non-disclosure and false pretenses in personal relationships, particularly concerning the promise of marriage.

This ruling by the Kerala High Court carries substantial implications for the interpretation and application of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, particularly Section 69, which addresses sex by deceitful means in India. By affirming that concealing an existing live-in relationship and a child from a prospective spouse can prima facie attract this section, the court has broadened the understanding of what constitutes 'deceitful means' in the context of criminal law. This sets a precedent for future cases where individuals might attempt to hide significant personal history during marriage negotiations.

The decision highlights the expanded scope of criminal liability for non-disclosure in marital contexts under the new BNS. It signals that courts may view such omissions as serious enough to warrant criminal charges, moving beyond mere civil disputes. For legal practitioners, this means a heightened need to advise clients on the potential criminal ramifications of failing to disclose relevant personal circumstances, particularly when a false promise to marry BNS charge could be levied.

Furthermore, the dismissal of the anticipatory bail plea in this instance underscores the gravity with which the court views such allegations. The Kerala High Court criminal law perspective, as demonstrated here, emphasizes protection for complainants who enter into marital arrangements based on incomplete or misleading information. This ruling serves as a critical early interpretation of the BNS, shaping how cases involving hiding live-in relationship criminal offence allegations will be handled moving forward.

This ruling provides a crucial interpretation of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 69, clarifying that concealing a live-in relationship and child from a prospective spouse can constitute 'sex by deceitful means.' Lawyers must advise clients on the expanded scope of criminal liability for non-disclosure in marital contexts, particularly under the new BNS, and consider its implications for anticipatory bail applications and criminal defense strategies.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlet.