Concealing Past Live-in Partner And Child Before Marriage Attracts Section 69 BNS: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail The Kerala High Court has ruled that suppressing a preexisting live-in relationship and a three-year-old child to obtain consent for sexual relations falls under deceptive sexual intercourse under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Concealing an existing live-in relationship and a child born from that union while finalizing marriage negotiations with a prospective bride can carry severe legal consequences. The Kerala High Court has observed that deliberately suppressing such critical personal history to engage in physical intimacy with a prospective bride amounts, prima facie, to sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Based on this observation, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by the accused and directed him to surrender before the investigating officer. High Court Decision and Refusal of Pre-Arrest Bail The ruling was delivered by Justice A. Badharudeen during the hearing of an appeal arising from a criminal case registered at the Feroke Police Station in Kozhikode district. The accused had approached the high court seeking protection from arrest. However, after examining the sequence of events and the nature of the allegations raised by the complainant, the bench found no ground to extend anticipatory bail. The court instructed the petitioner to surrender directly before the investigating officer to allow the statutory inquiry to proceed in accordance with law. Engagement Ceremony and Concealment of Vital Facts According to the official complaint, the marriage between the accused and the woman was formally settled following discussions between their families. The complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste community. As part of the marriage settlement, a formal ceremony was conducted between the two families, on which the woman's family incurred an expenditure of approximately Rs 10 lakh. The woman alleged that throughout this period, the man suppressed crucial information regarding his personal life. He had been cohabiting with another woman in an ongoing live-in relationship and fathered a three-year-old child from that partnership. The complainant stated that had she been aware of these circumstances earlier, she would have arrived at an entirely different conclusion regarding the relationship and the proposed marriage. Trip to Wayanad and Intimate Relations The complaint further states that after the wedding was settled, the woman travelled to Wayanad at the request of the accused. The two stayed together at a hotel during the visit. The woman alleged that the accused engaged in sexual relations with her during the stay, and she consented solely on the assurance and expectation of their upcoming marriage. When the true nature of his previous relationship came to light, a case was registered at Feroke Police Station under Section 318(4) and Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Contentions Raised by the Accused In his petition before the high court, counsel representing the accused contended that Section 69 of the BNS could not be invoked against him. The defence argued that the penal provision is strictly attracted only when an individual makes a promise to marry without any real intention of fulfilling it and subsequently backs out of the commitment. The accused asserted that he had always been willing to marry the complainant and had not reneged on his promise to marry, arguing that the essential ingredients of Section 69 were therefore absent. Judicial Clarification on the Scope of Section 69 BNS Justice A. Badharudeen rejected the defence interpretation, clarifying the broader scope of Section 69 of the BNS. The court explained that the provision contemplates two distinct legal scenarios. The first scenario involves obtaining consent for sexual intercourse through deceitful means, which includes the fraudulent suppression of facts. The second scenario pertains to making a false promise to marry without an intention to fulfill it and engaging in sexual relations on that basis. The bench observed that the case against the petitioner falls squarely under the first category. The court held that a mere willingness to proceed with the marriage is not a valid defence on its own. If the accused deliberately concealed his ongoing cohabitation with another woman and the existence of a three-year-old child to induce consent for physical relations, the conduct prima facie constitutes deceitful means under the statute. Premise of Consent and Marital Status The bench observed that when the marriage was being finalized, the complainant and her family legitimately operated under the understanding that the man was unmarried and not involved in any relationship that mirrored a marriage. Acting on that explicit assumption, the engagement was solemnized and substantial financial resources amounting to Rs 10 lakh were spent. The subsequent act of establishing physical intimacy while concealing his past relationship and child meets the threshold of Section 69 of the BNS. The court made it clear that while the conduct is not categorized as rape, it falls under the ambit of sexual relations secured through deceitful means. Invoking the SC/ST Act and Final Directive Because the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste community, the investigating agency also invoked Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The presence of these statutory provisions prompted the anticipatory bail application. The high court clarified that its observations are confined to the consideration of anticipatory bail based on the prima facie materials on record and must not be treated as a final determination of guilt. Concluding that the allegations disclose the commission of a prima facie cognizable offence, the court rejected the appeal and directed the accused to submit to the jurisdiction of the investigating officer. What this means for you This judicial ruling establishes strict accountability in matrimonial negotiations and sets clear legal boundaries regarding genuine consent. • Across India: Deliberately hiding past live-in relationships or children while finalizing a marriage to secure intimate relations will be treated as an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Individuals attempting to suppress marital status or personal facts can no longer escape criminal liability under the claim of willing consent. • In Kerala: The high court ruling provides local investigative authorities in Kozhikode and across the state solid precedent to proceed without leniency in complaints invoking Section 69 BNS alongside the SC/ST Act. Accused individuals facing such charges in the state will find it exceedingly difficult to secure anticipatory bail. • For Families: Families who incur substantial financial expenditures during engagement ceremonies now possess strong judicial precedent to hold deceptive suitors legally accountable. The ruling empowers victims of marital fraud to pursue both criminal remedies and restitution for expenses incurred. • For Prospective Couples: Consent obtained without full disclosure of preexisting commitments and dependents is legally categorized as consent procured through deceitful means. Citizens entering matrimonial negotiations must ensure complete transparency to prevent serious criminal litigation. Why this happened The case arose after an individual intentionally concealed his ongoing domestic life and parental responsibilities while formalizing marriage plans with a woman. The subsequent disclosure of these concealed facts led to criminal proceedings and the rejection of pre-arrest bail. • Deliberate Suppression of Personal Facts: The accused entered marriage talks without disclosing that he was already living with a partner and had a three-year-old child. This critical omission formed the foundation under which the complainant agreed to the match and incurred ceremony expenses. • Procurement of Consent via Deceit: The complainant consented to physical intimacy at a Wayanad hotel strictly believing that the marriage was fixed and that the accused had no other marital ties. The suppression of his ongoing domestic reality vitiated the legal validity of that consent. • Statutory Framework of Section 69 BNS: The court observed that Section 69 penalizes not only breach of a promise to marry but also obtaining sexual intimacy through deceitful means. Justice Badharudeen held that concealing an existing relationship and child squarely falls under this deceptive threshold. • Application of Special Enactments: Since the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste community, Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act was also invoked. The prima facie nature of the allegations required custodial surrender before the investigating officer rather than anticipatory bail. Questions & Answers 1. Why did the Kerala High Court dismiss the anticipatory bail plea? The court dismissed the plea because the accused allegedly concealed his ongoing live-in relationship and a three-year-old child to establish physical relations with his prospective bride. 2. Which legal sections have been invoked in this case? The case has been registered under Sections 69 and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. What defence did the accused offer during the hearing? The accused argued that Section 69 did not apply because he was ready to marry the complainant and had not reneged on a marriage promise. 4. How did the High Court interpret Section 69 of the BNS? The court held that Section 69 covers not only false promises to marry but also obtaining consent for sexual intercourse through deceitful means and suppression of facts. 5. How much money was spent by the woman's family on wedding arrangements? According to the complaint, the woman's family incurred an expenditure of approximately Rs 10 lakh on the marriage settlement ceremony. 6. Where was the criminal case registered? The complaint was formally registered at the Feroke Police Station in Kozhikode district. https://trendkia.com/en/national/shadi-se-pahale-liva-ina-aura-bachche-ki-sachchai-chhipana-kanuni-aparadha-kerala-high-court-ne-kharija-ki-agrima-jamanata-44669 TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.