Calling Off Marriage After Courtship Period Ends Not Breach Of Promise Rather Legitimate Exercise Of Choice: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that calling off a marriage after courtship period ends is not a breach of promise rather is a legitimate exercise of choice.

The Court was considering a Bail Application in a case registered for offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Bench of Justice Arun Monga observed, "It seems to be an unfortunate case where two consenting adults entered into a relationship with the initial intention of exploring the possibility of marriage. However, after getting to know each other better, one party chose not to proceed with the alliance. This legitimate exercise of choice has been misconstrued as a breach of promise. The very purpose of courtship or interaction prior to marriage is to assess mutual compatibility. To suggest that a person cannot change their mind after such interaction would defeat the essence of the concept itself."

The Applicant was represented by Advocate Jitender Tyagi, while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal.

Facts of the Case

In April 2025, the Complainant came into contact with the Applicant, through the matrimonial website Shaadi.com. The Applicant represented himself as well-settled in Dubai, stated that he was working there after completing his studies, and assured her that he would soon be visiting India. He also told her that his family was agreeable to the marriage. Thereafter, the Applicant and the Complainant remained in regular touch over phone calls and WhatsApp, during which he repeatedly promised marriage and gained her trust. He also established physical relationship with her on this pretext.

However, when the Complainant later pressed for Marriage, the Applicant and his family allegedly began placing unlawful demands, including a flat worth ₹2–3 crores in Dubai, a luxury car, and cash. The Applicant also threatened that unless these conditions were fulfilled, he would not marry her. Feeling cheated and mentally harassed, the complainant approached the Police and the FIR was lodged.

Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and the allegations in the FIR are concocted, frivolous and far from reality. He pointed out a WhatsApp message sent to the Applicant, in which the Victim categorically stated that no physical intimacy or inappropriate incident ever took place between them in the hotel room. It was thus averred that the said message directly contradicts the FIR allegations and establishes the falsity of the prosecution case. 

The Counsel submitted that the allegation of physical relationship on the pretext of marriage is wholly unfounded and placed reliance on Supreme Court's decision in Prithvirajan v. State (2025), Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024) wherein it has been consistently held that a consensual relationship based on a genuine intent to marry, which subsequently fails due to intervening circumstances, cannot amount to rape. He also argued that the hurried lodging of the FIR on part of the Complainant has caused irreparable damage to the Applicant’s livelihood and reputation.

Reasoning By Court

The Court was prima facie of the view that there may be some substance in certain of the arguments addressed on merits by the Counsel for the Applicant, but the same are a matter of trial. However, it added that at this stage, in light thereof, and for the reasons stated hereinafter, it appears to be a case for bail.

It also stressed that the claim of a physical relationship on the pretext of marriage based on a failed genuine intent to marry does not constitute rape. With respect to the allegations of blackmail and dowry demand, even if assumed to be true, the Court stated that do not attract Section 69 of the BNS.

"They are distinct and independent offences, triable in accordance with law. In this context, learned counsel for the applicant also submits that offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are, in any case, bailable. He points out that this is not a case where any dowry was given. At most, it is an allegation of demand, which never culminated into the actual exchange of any article", the Court ruled.

The Application was accordingly disposed of.

Cause Title: Naveen Yadav v. State NCT of Delhi

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Jitender Tyagi, Advocate Gaurav Bidhuri

Respondent- Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal

Click here to read/ download Order