Consent, Deception & the Law: How Indian Courts Are Protecting Women from False Promises of Marriage

July 29, 2025
POCSO, Prevention of Sexual Harassment
4 min read
A justice scale and gavel rest atop open law books, with the pillars of an Indian courthouse in the background. Scattered legal papers in the foreground are clearly labeled “CONSENT,” “DECEPTION,” and “LAW.” The color palette is blue-gray, creating a serious and thoughtful atmosphere. No people or heart symbols are present in the composition.

🧠A Story That Feels Too Familiar

Meera never expected to fall for him.
She was 19. He was 23—kind, consistent, and made her feel seen. Late-night calls, shared dreams, and future plans. He said he wanted to marry her—said it like he meant it.

He was her first. Not just physically, but emotionally.

Then things shifted. Missed calls. Distant replies. Until one day—
“I never said I’d marry you. Don’t make this a big deal.”

But it was a big deal. Because her choices—about her body, her safety, her trust—had been made in the shadow of a promise that was never real.

⚖️The Law Is Listening

Stories like Meera’s have long hovered in a grey zone—between heartbreak and harm, between private pain and public justice. But the Bombay High Court in Rupchand v. State of Maharashtra  offered clarity to this fraught conversation.

🧾The Case at Hand

The survivor, a 16-year-old fruit shop worker, met Rupchand through his regular visits.
After repeated requests, she shared her number.

One night, he intercepted her on her way home, demanded sexual favours, and when she resisted, promised marriage. As time passed, he didn’t follow through on the repeated promise of marriage. Instead, it became the basis for gaining her trust—and then violating it.When she became pregnant and he refused to marry her, she filed an FIR under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

🧑‍⚖️The Verdict

In a landmark ruling, the Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of Rupchand for rape—under both the Indian Penal Code (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and the POCSO Act.

Even though the survivor was a minor—and consent was immaterial under POCSO—the Court went a step further. It examined how that ‘consent’ was obtained and concluded that the promise of marriage—made solely to obtain sexual consent, with no intent to fulfil it—vitiated the ‘consent’. 

Under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (which replaces Section 375 of the IPC), such cases would amount to rape.The Court clarified—“Consent must be unequivocal and informed—freely given, without coercion or deception.”

✅What Is ‘Vitiated Consent’?

The law draws a clear line:

  • For those under 18 → consent isn’t recognized. Any sexual act is a crime.
  • For adults, it’s more complex—questions of power, promise, and manipulation are at the heart of the legal test.

So how do courts decide if consent was valid? They ask two critical questions:

  1. Was the promise false? A promise of marriage must be intentionally false—made in bad faith, with no real intention of keeping it.
  2. Did the promise directly influence the decision? There must be a clear nexus—a direct link—between the false promise and the woman’s choice to engage in the sexual act.

If both conditions are met—consent isn’t just flawed—it’s vitiated.

🔍But not all broken promises are crimes.

The Court drew upon the precedent in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, distinguishing between a false promise made to manipulate, and a genuine promise that couldn’t be kept.

In Uday v. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court cautioned that not all sexual relationships arising from romantic involvement imply coercion or deception. The key is context and intent—what was said, when, and why. 

In Uday, the promise of marriage was sincere but ultimately unfulfilled. In Rupchand, the intent to deceive was clear from the outset.  And it is this distinction that made all the difference. Courts step in not when trust is broken—but when it was never real to begin with. Judgments from the Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court show how carefully the law separates heartbreak from harm, untangling the complex threads of love, deception, and choice.

💬Parting Thoughts

Beyond statutes and sections, these cases touch something deeply human. Relationships built on trust, vulnerability, and hope deserve honesty.

But power often tilts the scales. When a young girl faces someone older, more dominant, and emotionally persuasive, a promise of marriage isn’t always sweet talk—it can become a tool of control. And in those moments, what appears to be consent, may in fact be consent shaped by manipulation.

For many survivors, rulings like these offer more than a conviction. They offer something long overdue— legal recognition that when trust is used as a tool of deception, it causes real harm.

At the same time, courts tread carefully. They don’t punish every broken promise. Instead, they ask—Was the promise intentionally false? Did it directly influence the decision to consent?Because in today’s courts, it’s not just about what was promised—but how that promise was used. And when that promise is a lie, the law is learning to listen.

Suggested Reading

  1. Rape or No Rape —That is the Question: An Analysis of Consent on the Basis of a Promise to Marry | SCC Times 
  2. Rape on the Pretext of Marriage: Are the Relationships Going Sour? | SCC Times 
  3. ‘CONSENT’ IN FALSE PROMISE TO MARRY: DECEPTIVE SEX AND THE LEGAL KNOT 
  4. BNS : Offences Against Woman And Children | Devgan.in 
  5. For Offence Of Rape On False Promise To Marry, Physical Relationships Must Be Shown To Be Only Based On Marriage Promise : Supreme Court 
  6. Long-standing consensual relationship without cheating not considered rape on pretext of marriage: Allahabad High Court
Contact Us