top of page
Search
Writer's pictureRitik Agrawal
1 day ago5 min read

Understanding the Legal Ramifications: Can a Breakup Land an Indian Man in Prison for Up to 10 Years?

Mustafa Khan

Integral University

A wooden chair under a spotlight in a dim room, viewed through bars. The atmosphere is somber and isolated.

Introduction

The debate around marriage, consent and relationships has always been there from the inception of the Indian Penal Code but the introduction of three new criminal laws sparked this debate on another level because of Section 69 of the new Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita which has punishment of imprisonment for up to 10 years for maintaining sexual relationships by deceit, including on the pretext of marriage. This means if a boy enters into a sexual relationship with a girl on the false promise of marriage then he will have to face 10 years of imprisonment. Now the main concern about this section is that it can be misused by women to harass and jail men for breaking up with their partner.

Background

The criminal law mitigates the evolving language of codes from ancient texts to contemporary norms. One such development has been the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita which has come to replace the Indian Penal Code 1960 on the 1st of July 2024.  On its own the BNS is not drastically different from the IPC, as certain sections remain intact whilst some are either amended or thrown out entirely. New provisions are a handful and one example of such a new provision is Section 69 of Chapter V of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023.

First of all, sexual intercourse as a consequence of obtaining consent either by a promise to marry (not leading to such marriage) without the intention to meet the above or by a statement (potentially including false promise / statement of marriage by suppressing true identity) is punishable under this part of the BNS. Second, a crucial caveat is that such an offence shall not be considered to be and cannot be tried in any sense as rape. Lastly, the punishment for such an offence is imprisonment, with the maximum term being ten years and a fine payable to the aggrieved. The post elaborates on the consequences of outré patriarchal drafting and the various ways that it offends constitutional values. It parses how this provision differs from its forbear, lays out key questions on consent and explores the range of different types of promises. It also underscores the ambiguous sentence for punishment and the vulnerability to misuse by both parties. Finally, the piece gently makes a passing reference to systematic exclusion from seeking recourse.

Legal Landscape

The recently drafted requirement and Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) offers an alternative to cases where sexual intercourse is obtained by fraud, which is different from Indian Penal Code provision, especially Section 493.

This new provision in the BNS, Section 69, appears similar but operates differently. It targets instances where dishonesty is employed to secure sexual intercourse but does not extend to circumstances tantamount to rape. The central part of the difference lies in the explanation of dishonest means and the context of sexual intercourse other than rape. This new development indicates that sexual intercourse was achieved by conning the other party which means section 69 applies while considering the BNS rather than treating it as a case of rape under section 63 of the BNS. It includes cases of where concurrence is obtained by fraud with but still raises questions about the necessity for definiteness within Section 69 to prevent ambiguity or distortion.

Man with crossed arms stands in front of prison bars, wearing a light blue shirt. He looks serious, with a neutral brown background.

Cases: The issue of false promises and consent in sexual relations has challenged the Indian legal system to a great extent. It is noteworthy how many courts have been focusing on what exactly constitutes the term ‘false promise’ and to what extent a breach of a marriage promise can be seen as a crime.  In the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019)AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 4010,  the Court opined engagement in creating a reasonable “consent” is paramount and two requirements necessary for a promise to marry to be regarded as false mention an intention to deceive and that the intention to marry had a direct bearing on the woman consenting to have sexual relations with the man. In Niam Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), SLP (Crl.) No. 8586/ 2017 as per the court other reasons that stand outside a person’s control would prevent them from going through with the marriage and therefore not every unmet marriage oath is a false oath. In Mahesh Dhamu Khare v. The State of Maharashtra (2024), 2024 INSC 897 the Supreme Court makes note of the ‘alarming trend’ of rendering rape accusations against love gone sour, whereby one literally assumes that a broken not just means a rape case. The Court consistently maintained that to establish that a woman had acted upon a promise that was false there is a lack of evidence to suggest that the accused from the start intended to marry the woman. In matters such as Prashant v. State of Delhi (2024), 2024 INSC 879  the Court highlighted that not every breakup or a dissolution of the relationship could give rise to criminal proceedings as it abolishes the symbolism that the relationship was initially consensual, therefore supporting the idea that such relationships can’t be criminalised retroactively.

Conclusion

The provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita which claims to be a ‘reformative law’ are but a recycled version of the IPC, or have been worsened. This law is the epitome of how backward our legal system still is. If male victims and their experiences continue to be in a borderline existence, then we have failed as a society. Societal taboos cause men to be even more reluctant to share their side of the story. Many men have been made to believe that what they go through are experiences that should be normal and pleasurable. What happens when the courts themselves do not even care about them? Women oppression advocacy is helpful but men oppression must be dealt with the same zeal. To talk of equity and equality while knowingly choosing to sit down and pretend male victims do not exist is disingenuous. Stereotypes do not always apply, and it is often the case that men have been aggressed and women remained the aggressor. It is indeed ironic that one gets branded by the laws which were meant to protect them from that exact stigma, and that too, solely on account of being a certain gender. 

Reference

1. Siddhi Singh and Krish Vikram, Promises, Prejudices and Perils: Unveiling the Complexities of Section 69, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, NLR BLOG BY NLIU LAW REVIEW, (DOA:08.12.24; 11:24 AM )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments

bottom of page