Kochi: A married woman cannot accuse a man of deceitful sex solely because their sexual relationship was based on his promise to marry her, the Kerala High Court ruled, while granting bail to a man who had spent 19 days in jail. "There cannot be a promise of marriage when one of the parties is in a subsisting marriage," observed Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in his bail order on Wednesday, July 2.

The ruling came in a case involving an office romance that turned sour -- between a 28-year-old unmarried man, a PRO at a Malappuram hospital, and a 26-year-old married woman working as a front-office executive at the same institution.

The High Court frowned upon the invocation of two incongruous sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) by the Malappuram police to arrest the hospital PRO. The man was booked under Section 84 of the BNS for allegedly taking away a married woman with the intent to have sexual relations with her. Simultaneously, he was also charged under Section 69 for engaging in sexual relations with the woman under the pretext of marrying her -- an act that, while not amounting to rape under the new law, is punishable with imprisonment of up to 10 years if deemed "deceitful".

"Once the admitted case of the prosecution is that the complainant is a married woman, there cannot be sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage," Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted in his order, citing precedents from 2021 and 2022. "In such a view of the matter, prima facie, it is doubtful whether the offence under Section 69 can be attracted."

As for Section 84, the court pointed out that it is a bailable offence, and therefore, the continued detention of the petitioner was unwarranted. The High Court granted bail without ruling on whether the sexual relationship was consensual, observing: "It is difficult for this Court at this juncture to conclude whether the relationship was consensual or not."

Romance, fraud and fallout
Rakesh S*, the hospital PRO, and Meera Das*, the front office executive, began a relationship in June 2024. By October, Meera had moved to another hospital in Tirur, but their romance continued.

Rakesh's lawyer, Adv Ameen Hassan K, said his client didn’t know Meera was married at first. "He found out only after her father and husband confronted him at work," he said. Even after that, the relationship continued, and Meera eventually divorced her husband.

But trouble began in March 2025, when her new employer in Tirur accused her of swindling around Rs 14 lakh while working in the billing section. The hospital said she returned Rs 9 lakh but still owed Rs 5 lakh.

Rakesh ended the relationship after the FIR was registered against her, said his lawyer.

Three months later, in June, Meera filed a police complaint accusing Rakesh of luring her into a relationship with false promises of marriage. She also alleged that he took Rs 2.5 lakh from her and didn’t return it. To be sure, she didn’t claim the money came from the hospital's missing funds.

Malappuram police arrested Rakesh on June 13, and on June 14, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, remanded him in custody.

The same day, Adv Ameen filed a bail application before the court. The magistrate court rejected the bail petition, saying the allegations were grave and Rakesh could influence the witnesses and/ or abscond, if granted bail, forcing him to approach the High Court.

After the bail was granted, Adv Ameen said he now planned to move the High Court to quash the FIR entirely. "None of the charges will hold. At best, it’s a case of financial dispute," he said.

Adv Ameen also criticised the use of Section 84 of the BNS (Older 498 IPC), calling it a version of the scrapped adultery law (Section 497 of the IPC) in principle. In 2018, the Supreme Court struck down criminalisation of adultery as unconstitutional. "It’s only a matter of time before Section 84 is also challenged," he said.
*Names changed to protect identities.