Back
'Kundali Excuse' After Sex and Promises? Says It Could Be Criminal Deceit Under New Law
In a ruling that's sparking debates on love, lust, and law in modern India, the has denied regular bail to Jayant Vats, accused of raping a 27-year-old woman under the guise of marriage promises. Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma ruled on , that backing out of marriage citing mismatched horoscopes—after years of assurances that the issue was resolved— amounts to deceitful conduct under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) , 2023, and . This comes amid a case where the two knew each other since college days in .
Media outlets like News18 quickly latched on, headlining it as
"Refusing To Marry After Sex Because Of 'Kundali' Mismatch Can Lead To Offence"
, highlighting how courts are scrutinizing cultural excuses in consent-based crimes.
From College Romance to Betrayal Allegations
The story unfolds over eight years. Ms. S, the , met petitioner Jayant Vats during college. What started as friendship allegedly turned physical in , inside his car, followed by encounters at his Tri Nagar home, The Golden Keys Hotel in Ashok Vihar, and a final alleged incident on , near Shakti Nagar.
She claims Vats promised marriage repeatedly, introducing her to his family as his fiancée, giving her a ring, and even attending functions together. WhatsApp chats showed him saying things like
"kal hi shaadi kar rahe hain hum"
(we're getting married tomorrow) in 2023, and assuring kundali matching was sorted.
Trouble brewed in when he distanced himself. In June, he refused marriage over "non-matching kundalis," a belief he and his family held dear. Ms. S filed a complaint in , withdrew it on fresh marriage assurances from Vats and family, but refiled on , leading to FIR No. 01/2026 at Keshav Puram police station. Vats has been in custody since .
Investigation revealed her MLC on January 3 (no injuries, internal exam declined), statement reiterating deceit, and his phone seized for FSL analysis. Only one "kiss photo" was mentioned, not explicit images.
'Consensual Love Turned Sour' vs 'Calculated Deception'
Vats' senior counsel, , argued for bail: an eight-year consensual adult relationship, no false promise from the start—just kundali mismatch as the hitch, proven by her complaints. He cited precedents distinguishing "breach of promise" from rape, urging this wasn't criminal.
Opposing fiercely, the 's counsel pointed to chats where Vats admitted her reluctance pre-marriage, pressured her, and lied about kundalis matching. The State APP, , stressed serious allegations, ongoing probe (chargesheet pending), and hotel verifications.
Why Not Just a Breakup? The Court's Sharp Distinction
Justice Sharma delved into chats from , noting Vats sought her birth details, assured matches, and framed pre-marital intimacy as natural. The complaint withdrawal on marriage promises, followed by refusal, painted a pattern.
The court drew a crucial line:
"Courts have consistently drawn a distinction between a genuine promise that could not be fulfilled due to subsequent circumstances and a false assurance given from the inception with the intent to secure consent."
Mere failed relationships don't trigger rape laws, but here, repeated kundali assurances despite family beliefs suggested deceit from the outset, fitting
(sexual intercourse by deceitful means).
If kundalis were paramount, why not check early? , Vats' flip-flop questioned promise genuineness.
Key Observations from the Judgment
-
"The sequence of events, at this stage, cannot be viewed as a mere relationship turning sour, but rather suggests that assurances of marriage were repeatedly extended despite the applicant being aware of the insistence of his family on kundali matching."
(Para 11) -
"In one chat dated , the applicant has stated – kal hi shaadi kar rahe hain hum – which demonstrates that the aspect of kundali matching was already represented by the applicant as having been resolved."
(Para 10) -
"The subsequent refusal to marry on the ground of non-matching of kundalis, despite earlier assurances to the contrary, raises a question as to the nature and genuineness of the promise extended by the applicant."
(Para 14) -
"Such conduct, at this stage, would attract the offence under Section 69 of the BNS, which specifically deals with cases of sexual relations induced by deceit or false assurance of marriage."
(Para 14)
No Bail for Now: Probe Continues
The court dismissed the bail plea:
"Having regard to the nature of allegations, the material collected during investigation so far, and the fact that chargesheet in the case is yet to be filed, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant at this stage."
(Para 15)
Observations are limited to bail, not merits. For Vats, it means custody lingers as FSL reports and outstation hotel checks proceed. For future cases, it signals courts will probe "cultural" excuses like kundali mismatches against promise timelines, potentially tightening scrutiny on "promise-to-marry" rapes under the new BNS regime.
This ruling underscores evolving jurisprudence: consent vitiated by deceit isn't "just personal," even in long relationships.
