False Promise of Marriage: Section 69 BNS 2023 Explained

A woman in a long relationship agrees to sex believing her partner will marry her, as he repeatedly assured. He later reveals he was already married, or never meant to marry at all. Is this a crime, and which one? Since 1 July 2024, India answers this with a dedicated provision, Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

In short: Section 69 BNS makes it a standalone offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman by “deceitful means” or on a promise to marry he never intended to keep, where the act does not amount to rape. The maximum punishment is imprisonment up to ten years and a fine. This is a separate offence from rape under Section 64 BNS, and it did not exist as a named section before the BNS came into force.

Section 69 falls in Chapter V of the BNS (Offences Against Woman and Child). In plain terms, it punishes a man who, by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling it, has sexual intercourse with her, where that intercourse does not amount to the offence of rape. The punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, plus a fine.

The section carries an Explanation that defines “deceitful means” to include a false promise of employment or promotion, an inducement, or marrying after suppressing identity. So the deceit covered is not limited to a marriage promise; a false job or promotion lure, or hiding that one is already married, can also fall within the provision.

The offence is cognizable (police can register an FIR and investigate without prior court permission), non-bailable, and triable by a Court of Session.

Before the BNS, there was no separate “false promise to marry” offence. Such cases were prosecuted as rape under Sections 375 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the argument that the woman's consent was given under a “misconception of fact” (Section 90 IPC), making the consent legally invalid. Courts had to stretch the definition of rape to cover deceit cases.

Section 69 changes that. It creates a distinct, lower-grade offence (maximum ten years) for deceit-based intercourse that does not meet the legal threshold of rape under Section 64 BNS. The aim is to address genuine deceit without automatically labelling every broken relationship as rape.

The single most important question is whether the promise to marry was false from the very beginning.

1. False from the start (likely Section 69): The man never intended to marry, for example he was already married, or already engaged to someone else, and used the promise only to obtain sex.
2. Genuine but later failed (usually not an offence): The intention to marry was real at the time, but the relationship later broke down due to family opposition, caste or community objection, changed circumstances, financial pressure, or simple cowardice. A broken genuine promise is not, by itself, a crime.
3. Deceit about identity or a job: Suppressing that one is already married, or luring with a false job, promotion, or inducement, can attract Section 69 under the Explanation, even where no marriage was promised.
4. The consent link: The false promise must have a direct bearing on the woman's decision to engage in the act. If she would have consented anyway, the promise was not the operative cause.

The Supreme Court, in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), framed the test (under the old IPC) that courts still apply: the promise must have been false and given in bad faith with no intention of being honoured at the time it was made, and it must have a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act. A mere breach of a promise to marry is not enough.

1. That the accused had sexual intercourse with the woman.
2. That her consent was obtained by deceitful means, or by a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling it.
3. That the promise or deceit was false at the time it was made, not merely broken later.
4. That this deceit had a direct connection to her decision to consent.
5. That the act does not amount to rape under Section 64 BNS (a finding of rape would shift the case to that heavier provision).

1. Approach the police station with jurisdiction and lodge an FIR; Section 69 is cognizable, so the police are obliged to register it.
2. Preserve evidence: messages, chats, call records, photographs, witnesses, or any document showing the promise and the surrounding facts.
3. If the police refuse to register the FIR, a complaint can be made to the Superintendent of Police, or a private complaint filed before a Magistrate under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
4. The case is investigated and then tried by a Court of Session.

For drafting any related information request to a public authority, you can use our AI RTI Drafter.

This is a two-sided question, and the law protects against misuse as much as it punishes deceit. Common defences include:

1. Genuine intention: Showing the intention to marry was real, and the relationship failed for reasons outside the accused's control.
2. No false promise as the cause: Evidence that the relationship was consensual and the woman did not rely on any marriage promise to consent.
3. Delay and improbability: A long, unexplained delay in complaining, or facts showing the parties lived together as a couple, may weaken the prosecution.
4. Quashing: Where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not make out the offence, the accused can seek to quash the FIR. See our guides on how to quash an FIR under BNSS 528 and how to quash a vague 498A FIR.

1. “Every break-up after a physical relationship is a crime.” No. A genuinely intended promise that later fails is not an offence.
2. “Section 69 is the same as rape.” No. It is a separate, distinct offence with a lower maximum sentence; rape is dealt with under Section 64 BNS.
3. “Only a marriage promise counts.” No. False job or promotion offers, inducements, and concealing one is already married can also attract Section 69.
4. “A live-in relationship that ends is automatically Section 69.” No. The validity of the relationship and the falseness of any promise still have to be proved. If you are unsure about your marital status itself, see our guide on void and voidable marriage.

Consider a neutral illustration. Suppose, in Lucknow in 2025, Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak is alleged to have assured a colleague over two years that he would marry her and obtained her consent to a physical relationship, while he was in fact already married and had concealed it. If the complaint shows the promise was false from the start and was the reason for her consent, those facts could prima facie attract Section 69 BNS. If, instead, the records showed a genuine engagement that broke down after his family objected on caste grounds, the same facts would point away from an offence and towards a failed relationship. The outcome turns entirely on the falseness of the promise at the time it was made, not on the break-up.

This example is illustrative only and does not describe any real proceeding.

No. Rape is dealt with under Section 64 BNS. Section 69 is a separate, lower-grade offence for deceit-based intercourse that does not amount to rape, carrying a maximum of ten years.

Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and the accused is also liable to a fine.

No. A breach of a genuine promise to marry is not an offence. The promise must have been false from the beginning and the reason the woman consented.

As worded, the provision targets a man who deceives a woman. It does not, on its face, criminalise a woman in the same situation.

There was no separate section. Such cases were prosecuted as rape under IPC Sections 375 and 376 using the “consent under misconception of fact” route in Section 90 IPC. Section 69 BNS now provides a dedicated offence.

It is a non-bailable and cognizable offence, triable by a Court of Session. Whether bail is granted is for the court to decide on the facts.

To go deeper on using information rights to gather records for your case, read The RTI Playbook.

1. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023), Section 69 and its Explanation; Section 64 (rape), indiacode.nic.in.
2. Notification of commencement of the BNS, 2023 with effect from 1 July 2024, Ministry of Home Affairs.
3. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, Supreme Court of India, judgment dated 21 August 2019 (false promise and misconception of fact test).
4. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 375, 376 and 90 (pre-BNS position on consent under misconception of fact).