Back
Suppressing Live-In Relationship and Child Constitutes Offence Under Section 69 BNS:
In a significant ruling on , the held that suppressing a pre-existing live-in relationship and a child born from that relationship before entering into a marriage proposal attracts . The provision criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained by or through a . Justice A. Badharudeen, presiding over the single bench, delivered the judgment on , while dismissing an appeal filed by the accused, Udayan.
Background: A Marriage Fixation Built on Concealment
The case originated from a complaint filed by a woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. According to the prosecution, Udayan and the victim had agreed to marry, and a marriage fixation ceremony was conducted on . The victim's family spent approximately ₹10 lakh on the ceremony, which was attended by about 1,000 people. However, after the fixation, the victim discovered that Udayan had been in a live-in relationship with another woman and had a three-year-old child from that relationship—facts he had deliberately concealed.
Subsequently, at Udayan’s request, the victim travelled to Wayanad and stayed at Almaj Residency in Room No. 101. There, Udayan compelled her to have sexual intercourse on the premise that their marriage was already fixed. The victim consented based on that promise. The registered Crime No. 138/2026 under Sections 318(4) (cheating), , and 69 of the BNS, along with .
The , rejected Udayan’s application on . Aggrieved, he appealed before the High Court.
The Legal Dispute: Willingness to Marry vs.
Udayan’s counsel argued that Section 69 BNS applies only in two scenarios: when the accused uses , or when he makes a promise to marry without any intention to fulfil it. Since Udayan was still willing to marry the victim, the counsel contended that no offence under Section 69 was made out. They further argued that required delivery of property, which was absent, and that the bar under did not apply.
The Public Prosecutor countered by presenting the victim’s statements, which revealed that Udayan had actively suppressed his existing relationship and child. The prosecutor submitted that such suppression constituted under the first limb of Section 69. was necessary to record Udayan’s statement, seize his clothing worn at the time of the incident, and conduct a .
Court’s Analysis: Two Limbs of Section 69 BNS
Justice Badharudeen meticulously examined the scope of Section 69 of the BNS. The provision reads:
69. Whoever, by or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation. — “” shall include inducement for, or false promise of employment or promotion, or marrying by .
The court identified two distinct situations covered by the section: first, sexual intercourse obtained through , and second, sexual intercourse obtained by a promise to marry made without intention to fulfil. The court clarified that the case squarely fell within the first situation. Even though Udayan professed willingness to marry, he had secured the victim’s consent for sexual intercourse by suppressing his pre-existing live-in relationship and child—an act clearly falling within the ambit of under the explanation to Section 69.
The court observed: “Subsequently, on the said premise of marriage, after suppressing the earlier relationship, the defacto complainant was subjected to sexual intercourse by . Though the said overt act may not be treated as rape, the same would fall under the first situation dealt with in Section 69 of the BNS.”
Since the BNS offences correspond to scheduled offences under the IPC for the purposes of the SC/ST Act, the court held that Section 3(2)(va) of the Act was also attracted. Consequently, the bar under —which prohibits grant of —applied.
Key Observations
The court underscored the need for to facilitate meaningful investigation. It noted that the investigating officer had specifically demanded the accused’s custody for recording his statement, seizure of evidence, and conducting a . Granting at this stage would impede the investigation.
In concluding, the court stated: “To sum up, it is held that, in the instant case, , the offences are made out and, in such a case, the would apply and the appellant could not be granted , as rightly found by the learned Special Judge.”
Final Decision and Implications
The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Special Court. It directed Udayan to surrender before the investigating officer forthwith. Failure to do so would entitle the investigating officer to arrest him and proceed with the investigation without any reluctance.
This judgment marks a crucial interpretation of Section 69 BNS, making it clear that the provision covers cases where consent is obtained through concealment of material facts—even if the accused remains willing to marry. It reinforces the protection available to women against sexual exploitation under the guise of marriage and sends a strong deterrent message to those who attempt to use marital promises as a cover for deceit.
