Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
Over the course of the past several months, three famous men faced allegations of engaging in sex under the false promise of marriage. Two of them–Malayalam rapper Vedan alias Hirandas Murali and cricketer Yash Dayal–face criminal cases, while the third, Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkoottathil, was suspended by the Congress party.
The survivors were not received kindly. "When will Indian women realise that men not marrying them or breaking up with them isn't rape?" "Why is this law not gender neutral?" "What’s the point of enjoying [sex] for years, only to come back with a complaint later?" These were some of the comments under reports of a doctor filing a sexual harassment complaint against Kerala-based rapper Vedan. It is not just in this case—most women who file sexual harassment complaints that generally come under the category of 'false promise to marry' face similar comments, not just from social media users, but even at police stations and courts.
"Yes, there was consent when we were living together. But when we come out of it, will society treat both of us equally? If then, I don't have any complaints," said Seena*, who is fighting a legal case–a rape charge–against her former live-in partner of two years. Both the complainant and accused are lawyers, but the community largely stood with the man, she alleged. Seena said she was seen as the ‘villain’ in the story, slutshamed, and shunted out of her workplace after she filed the complaint.
The topic of ‘false promise to marry’ has been a legal conundrum for a long time. It often raises questions about consent, women's sexual autonomy, and the implications of equating it with rape. Sections 375 (rape) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were mostly relied on for such cases. The replacing of the IPC with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)led to the introduction of a new section–Section 69 (sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means)–has raised more questions than answers.
While quashing a rape case against a social worker in Maharashtra in 2024, Supreme Court judges Justice B V Nagaratna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh described as a "worrying trend" the practice of invoking criminal law when prolonged consensual relationships turn sour. However, the bench also added a word of caution. "Every case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances, for we are dealing with human relationships and psychology, which are dynamic and permeated with an array of unpredictable human emotions and sensitivities. Hence every decision relating to human relationships must be based on the peculiar facts and circumstances obtained in the particular case."
On July 31, Kerala-based rapper Vedan alias Hirandas Murali was charged with Section 376 (2) of the IPC on a complaint filed by a young doctor. As per the complaint, the woman was raped multiple times between 2021 and 2023 under the promise of marriage. Cricketer and Royal Challengers Bengaluru star Yash Dayal is facing charges under Section 69 of BNS on a complaint by a woman who was in a five-year-long relationship with him. Palakkad MLA and suspended Congress leader Rahul Mamkootathil is another prominent person who recently faced a flurry of allegations of similar nature. Though there were no formal complaints, the Congress in Kerala suspended Rahul from the party after screenshots of chats and voice notes, purportedly of Rahul with some women, surfaced. As per some voice recordings, Rahul entered into relationships with these women proposing marriage and later backtracked. In a graver allegation, he even forced two women to undergo abortions.
Who can be a victim?
Legal scholar Surbhi Karwa said that the offence of false promise to marry was a judicial creation, which was later criminalised with the introduction of BNS. Surbhi said that many judgements have merely cemented the social stereotypes about heterosexual relationships, adding that factors like caste and marital status of the victims have influenced judgements.
Legal experts point to Uday v/s State of Karnataka (2003) as one of the first cases the judiciary categorised under ‘false promise to marry’. In Uday v/s State of Karnataka, which is often cited in similar cases, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused who impregnated the sister of his friend by promising to marry her. Believing him, the woman had delivered the child in 1989.
One of the reasons for the SC to dismiss lack of consent was the caste difference between the accused, a Daivadnya Brahmin, and the victim, belonging to the Tamil Goundar caste. The court found it hard to believe that the promise to marry induced the woman to give consent for sexual intercourse as she knew that her marriage was not possible on account of caste consideration. "She was aware of the fact that since they belonged to different castes, marriage was not possible … She had sufficient intelligence to understand the significance and moral quality of the act she was consenting to," the court had observed.
The Kerala High Court in July and the Punjab-Haryana High Court in August this year stated that married women who are in a relationship with a man other than their husband can not file a rape complaint under 'false promise to marry'. The Kerala High Court, while granting bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting a woman and later threatening to publish her photos, said a promise to marry cannot arise when one of the parties is already in a subsisting marriage.
In Naim Ahmed vs State (NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court acquitted the accused, stating that the woman, being ‘mature and intelligent’, understood the consequences of her actions and continued the relationship even after discovering the man was married. The court said that the woman, who is married and has three children, could not be said to have acted under the alleged false promise given by the man or under the misconception of fact while giving the consent to have sexual relationship.
Age, marital status, religious and caste differences, duration of relationship, etc. have been decisive factors in the acquittal of accused in many cases. Many such judgements end up reinforcing patriarchal, heteronormative narratives around women. It’s also important to note that the majority of petitioners are cisgender women, indicating that sexual minorities may not even feel empowered or safe enough to pursue such cases.
Intent: Was it deceptive at the outset?
Breaking the promise of marriage is criminalised only if the intent is found to be deceptive from the beginning. That is, the promise was given with the sole intention of gaining consent for sexual intercourse. The legal scholar Surbhi stated that courts would check whether there was a false promise (intent to deceit from the start of relationship) or breach of promise (where the initial intent was to marry but later did not work out).
Data journalist Rukmini S, in her book Whole Numbers and Half Truths, found that conviction rates were too low in cases that included the charge of ‘breach of promise to marry’. According to her report, out of 460 rape cases argued before Delhi courts, 109 were related to false promise to marry. Only twelve of the 109 cases resulted in conviction and that too where the man was either already married or had a fraudulent marriage with the complainant, she wrote, indicating that convictions happened only where the deceit was absolutely clear.
Though the Metoo movement and Vishakha guidelines have shed some light on consent manipulation and power play in relationships, it is still a struggle for the victims to prove at court. Feminist and social critic Malavika Binny observed that manipulated consent seemed to be a difficult concept for even the judiciary to understand and that was owing to the overwhelming patriarchal nature of our society. “Notions of justice have remained androcentric and that is why there is still confusion regarding 'deceptive sex',” she said.
“In the context of India, women have internalised the role of the suffering to an extent that pain and physical trauma during sex is considered normal; the same internalisation of the ‘suffering wife role' is carried into relationships which have the promise/ prospect of marriage. Non awareness of law and the physical aspects of sex (for instance, the belief that first time love- making is always painful) accentuates the vulnerability of young women. Adding to that the huge emphasis on notions of virginity, purity and chastity which are still regarded as largely exclusively feminine 'qualities' makes the rape under pretext of marriage clause still very relevant,” Malavika added.
Kochi-based lawyer Raghul Sudheesh, who has appeared for victims and accused in FPM cases, said that most of the victims in the cases he attended had agreed for sexual relationship only because they saw a future together. “There are genuine victims, but also a minority who try to exploit financial gains out of such cases. The issue with FPM cases is that the victims often don’t have material evidence to prove intent. Conviction is too low in such cases,” he said. Raghul added that lawyers are not generally much sensitised with regard to FPM cases.
In many cases, including Uday v/s state of Karnataka, the first act of sex was non-consensual. However, a promise to marry, made before or soon after the sex, was then used to prolong the sexual relationship. In the case of a complaint filed by the doctor against rapper Vedan, the woman said in the complaint that she was raped against her consent in August 2021 while he came to visit her for the first time after the duo developed a relationship through online chats and phone calls. "We were having a conversation on a bed in the living room, during which he asked for permission to kiss me. I agreed. But then he pushed me into the bed and raped me without my consent. After that, he promised to marry me," said the complaint. They continued their relationship till 2023 after which he broke up with her. The woman filed the complaint in 2025 after she saw a similar allegation against Vedan in an online newsportal. The rapper's social media post introducing his new girlfriend as his first love also triggered her to file the complaint, it said.
Legal researcher Nikita Sonavane, in a podcast by The Hindu, said that in such cases promise of marriage was a ruse to undermine and invisibilise the sexual violence and sexual harm underneath.
‘Don’t blame me for the failure of legislature’
Narrating her experience, Seena said that she had made it clear at the start of their relationship that she was not into a casual relationship. “Since I am a religious person, he took me to a temple and garlanded me. Now if you ask me whether that makes any sense, it doesn’t. But when you are in a relationship, you get convinced,” she said. Garlanding before a deity is a ritual widely performed in Kerala, among Hindus, to signify a marriage.
Seena and her former partner were in a relationship for two years, including one year of living together. It was her former partner who first filed a complaint of alleged financial fraud against her after the break up, forcing her to fight back.
“My life was falling apart right in front of my eyes, while the man lost nothing. The entire legal proceedings were so terrible, even for a lawyer like me. The questions they ask at the police station and during medical check ups were unbearable. I was so emotionally broken that I couldn't recollect every single fact. If they ask me now, after six months, I can do that very well. Every inconsistency in the statement, every word–for example if I say ‘we went together’, that ‘we’–will be later questioned in court,” she said.
Seena said that troubles in her personal life started spilling onto her profession too. The case left her vulnerable to further harassment and, even worse, stripped her of the power to speak out against it.
“After this case, one of my seniors started misbehaving with me at the office. I had no choice but to leave. If I file a complaint, I will be labelled as a trouble-maker, someone who is filing complaints against all men. Even now, I can’t even get an office. I won’t get an apartment. Everywhere I am being judged. If this is the case for me–a legal professional in her mid-thirties–I wonder how a woman in her 20s or under will handle this,” she said. Seena said that young women often don’t dare to file a complaint.
When faced with questions of ‘misuse’ of the rape law, Seena points out that there is no ideal legal provision that she could use. “The victim is left with nothing, but Section 375 [of IPC]. I don’t want to be a victim in a rape case, but tell me, what choice do I have? Don't blame me for the failure of the legislature. There is Section 302 for murder, and 304 when your vehicle hits someone and kills them. Both cause death, but there is a specification. What is the choice for a woman between 375 and 420 (cheating)?”
Seena said that she is not worried about the outcome of the case. “I would like to be known as a woman who fought and not as someone who was used and thrown away. Whether I am going to win or lose is absolutely irrelevant,” she said.
Is the BNS provision a solution?
For those like Seena, Section 69 of BNS came as an answer to the widespread call against misuse of rape laws. As per Section 69, “Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, and 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 10 years and shall also be liable to fine”.
The law thus differentiated the offense of ‘false promise to marry’ from ‘rape’ andintroduced a change in the quantum of punishment. While 10 years is the minimum punishment in a rape case, it is the maximum under Section 69 of BNS.
However, the law has its share of shortcomings. Proving that the accused intentionally deceived the petitioner to have sex with him continues to be a herculean task. Victims continue to face the same old questions regarding age, caste-religious difference, and marital status in courts.
In the podcast, Nikta also expressed concerns that it could be misused against consenting couples in inter-caste, inter-religious and queer relationships, which are already under threat in the current socio-political environment.
Civil remedies
Activists and legal experts also suggest non-punitive ways to address the aftermath of sexual abuse. Civil remedies with a survivor-centric approach are cited as an alternative to criminal law.
Surbhi said that the burden of proof is higher on the survivor in case of criminal law. “The petitioner will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had a false intention from the start of their relationship. Under civil remedies the standard proof is balance of probability, which is a lower standard to meet and can allow victims to seek remedies and compensation caused to them," she said.
For example, in Dilip v/s State of Bihar (2004), even though the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence, it made the accused accountable to damages under civil law. Considering the fact that the woman got pregnant and delivered a girl child, the court ordered for monetary compensation, irrespective of the acquittal. Quoting the case, Nikita said that though money was not a redressal of harm, there was an acknowledgement of the harm caused.
Seena, however, disagreed with civil remedies. “At least some men don’t dare to cheat women in fear of getting arrested. So it should remain in the criminal category. The mental, physical and emotional pain cannot be replaced with compensation. Also, the inordinate delay in civil cases defeat the very purpose of filing the case,” she added. Seena suggested that a separate forum to try FPM cases can be considered, where each trial could be on the basis of the gravity of complaints.