Refusing to marry due to a ‘kundali’ (horoscope) mismatch after engaging in a physical relationship based on an assurance of marriage can lead to criminal charges under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Delhi High Court has stated.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made this observation while denying bail to a man accused of establishing physical relations with a woman and then refusing to marry her on the grounds that their birth charts did not match.

The judge noted that the relationship had developed over time based on the accused’s repeated assurance to the woman that there were no obstacles to their marriage, including ‘kundali’ matching. Therefore, at this stage, his conduct would attract the offence under Section 69 of the BNS.

The accused, who has been in judicial custody since January 4, sought bail, arguing that the relationship was consensual and that the parties had known each other for eight years. His counsel contended that rape on the false pretext of marriage was not applicable and that the accused deserved regular bail.

In its order on February 17, the court noted that the woman’s first complaint was lodged in November 2025 but was withdrawn based on the alleged assurance of marriage given by the accused and his family. Later, the accused refused to marry her, citing non-matching ‘kundalis’. Consequently, a fresh FIR was lodged in January 2026 for offences under Section 376 (rape) of the IPC and Section 69 of the BNS.

The court stated that the sequence of events indicated that this was not merely a case of a “relationship turning sour” but involved repeated assurances of marriage despite the accused being aware of his family’s insistence on ‘kundali’-matching.

The court emphasised that criminal law cannot be invoked merely because a relationship fails or a marriage does not materialise. However, in this case, the subsequent refusal to marry based on non-matching ‘kundalis’, despite earlier assurances to the contrary, raised questions about the nature and genuineness of the promise. Such conduct, at this stage, would attract the offence under Section 69 of the BNS.

The court dismissed the bail application, citing the nature of the allegations, the evidence collected during the investigation, and the fact that the chargesheet had not yet been filed.