The Madras High Court refused anticipatory bail to a man accused of sexual relations on a false promise of marriage, observing that women in live-in relationships are trapped in a “web of modernity and culture” and directing the invocation of Section 69 of the BNS.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MADURAI: In a ruling highlighting the legal position of adult women in live-in relationships, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused of having sexual relations with a woman on a false promise of marriage. The Court also directed the police to invoke Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a newly introduced provision criminalising sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful promise of marriage.
Justice S. Srimathy, while dismissing the anticipatory bail plea, observed that women in live-in relationships constitute one of the most legally vulnerable sections of society, as they fall outside the protective frameworks of both POCSO (which safeguards minors) and matrimonial laws (which protect married women).
The criminal original petition was filed by Prabhakaran, who apprehended arrest in Crime No. 35 of 2024, registered by the All Women Police Station, Manaparai, Trichy District. The FIR initially invoked Sections 417, 420 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 351(2) of the BNS.
The complaint was lodged by a woman nurse, who alleged that she had been in a relationship with the petitioner since their school days. According to her, the relationship developed into physical intimacy from 2019 onwards, based on repeated assurances that the petitioner would marry her. The complainant stated that she consented to the sexual relationship solely due to this promise, despite opposition from the petitioner’s family.
In August 2024, the couple reportedly left their parental homes and travelled to Trichy with the intention of marrying. They stayed together in a rented house. However, following a missing complaint filed by the woman’s father, the petitioner allegedly dropped her back home and later refused to marry her.
During an inquiry at the Vaiyampatti Police Station, the petitioner allegedly admitted to the physical relationship and gave a written assurance that he would marry the complainant after completing a Railway Recruitment Examination. The complainant further alleged that the petitioner’s relatives threatened both of them at the police station due to the proposed inter-caste marriage.
When the petitioner later rescinded his promise, the present criminal proceedings were initiated.
Justice Srimathy made strong socio-legal observations on the realities faced by women in live-in relationships. The Court noted that while men often embrace “modernity” when entering such relationships, they later weaponise traditional notions of morality by questioning the woman’s character once disputes arise.
The Court observed:
- Adult women in live-in relationships are exposed to social stigma, emotional trauma and abandonment
- Unlike married women, they have no automatic right to maintenance, residence, or social security
- Unlike minors, they do not receive protection under POCSO
- Many women refuse compensation or maintenance due to fear of being branded as having “slept for money.”
The Court described this situation as trapping women in a “web of modernity and culture”, where neither traditional safeguards nor modern legal protections fully apply.
Section 69 of BNS
The Court analysed Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which criminalises sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means or by a promise of marriage made without any intention of fulfilling it.
Justice Srimathy clarified that:
- Earlier, such cases were forced into the framework of rape (Sections 375/376 IPC) or cheating
- Under the BNS, the false promise of marriage is recognised as a distinct offence
- The provision applies where consent is obtained through deception, even if the act does not amount to rape
Finding that the petitioner had engaged in sexual relations on the assurance of marriage and was now refusing to honour that assurance, the Court held that the prima facie ingredients of Section 69 BNS were satisfied and directed the police to add the provision to the FIR.
The petitioner argued that he was unemployed, financially dependent on his parents, and not in a position to marry. He also alleged that the complaint was false and motivated. However, the Court was not persuaded.
Notably:
- Mediation efforts failed
- The petitioner failed to file an affidavit expressing willingness to marry, despite the Court’s directions
- Prima facie evidence indicated sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage
Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, and the necessity of custodial interrogation, the Court held that it was not a fit case for anticipatory bail.
Case Title:
Prabhakaran vs The State
CRL.OP(MD). No.6147 of 2025
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Live-In Relationships