Modern relationships can expose Indian men to criminal cases, maintenance claims, DV Act proceedings, false promise to marry allegations, and arrest risk. Know the law, case laws, and precautions.
NEW DELHI: Modern relationships in India are no longer only emotional. They are legal minefields.
A man may enter a relationship thinking it is private, consensual and personal. But when the relationship breaks down, it can suddenly become a criminal complaint, a maintenance case, a domestic violence petition, a rape allegation on promise of marriage, or a family-wide 498A/BNS 85 prosecution.
This is not fear-mongering. This is courtroom reality.
1. False Promise To Marry: A Breakup Can Become A Criminal Case
Under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, sexual intercourse by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry without intention to fulfil it can invite punishment up to 10 years and fine.
But the Supreme Court has drawn a clear line. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that a promise to marry becomes criminal only when it was false from the beginning and made in bad faith. Mere failure of a relationship is not automatically rape or cheating.
Men must understand this: casual chats, romantic assurances, “future planning”, family discussions and intimate relationships can all become evidence later.
2. 498A Is Now BNS 85: Marriage Can Bring Criminal Exposure
Earlier, cruelty by husband or relatives was prosecuted under Section 498A IPC. Under the new criminal law regime, the corresponding provision is Section 85 BNS, which punishes cruelty by husband or relatives with imprisonment up to 3 years and fine.
The Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India warned that misuse of this provision can unleash “legal terrorism” and that the law is a shield, not an assassin’s weapon.
In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court again cautioned against vague, general and omnibus allegations against relatives in matrimonial disputes.
The risk is not only to the husband. Parents, sisters, brothers and even distant relatives may be dragged into litigation.
3. Arrest Risk: Notice Is The Rule, Arrest Is Not Automatic
In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that arrest should not be mechanical in offences punishable up to seven years.
Now, Section 35 BNSS continues the arrest-safeguard framework. For many offences up to seven years, police must consider notice and record reasons before arrest.
However, on the ground, men still face fear of police pressure, family humiliation, workplace embarrassment and settlement coercion. Legal safeguards exist, but they must be asserted immediately.
4. Maintenance: Even Separation Can Create Long-Term Financial Liability
Maintenance law is one of the biggest risks men face after relationship breakdown.
Under Section 144 BNSS—the successor framework to Section 125 CrPC—a Magistrate may order maintenance for a wife, children or parents who are unable to maintain themselves.
In Rajnesh v. Neha, the Supreme Court issued detailed maintenance guidelines and mandated financial disclosure through affidavits of assets and liabilities.
The danger for men is simple: income, lifestyle, bank entries, property, ITRs, social media, foreign travel and even earning capacity may be used to calculate maintenance.
5. Live-In Relationships Are Not Legally Risk-Free
Many men believe live-in relationships avoid legal consequences. That is wrong.
In D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, the Supreme Court held that a relationship “in the nature of marriage” may attract legal consequences if certain conditions are satisfied.
In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, the Supreme Court examined when a live-in relationship may come within the Domestic Violence Act framework.
So, a man may think he was only in a relationship. The court may later examine whether it looked like marriage: shared residence, social representation, financial dependency, duration and conduct.
6. Domestic Violence Act: Civil Case, Serious Consequences
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is civil in structure but powerful in effect. It can lead to residence orders, protection orders, monetary relief, compensation and litigation pressure.
A man may not be arrested immediately merely because a DV case is filed, but the orders can affect his home, income, family property and peace of life.
The risk increases when the relationship includes cohabitation, shared finances, messages showing control, alleged abuse, or dependency.
7. Digital Evidence Can Save Or Destroy A Man
Modern relationships leave digital trails.
WhatsApp chats, call recordings, UPI transfers, hotel bookings, Instagram posts, emails, location history and CCTV can become evidence. Men often delete material emotionally. That is a mistake.
Preserve:
- chats showing consent and context
- proof of payments
- travel records
- medical records
- threats or extortion messages
- attempts at settlement
- proof of separate residence
- police complaints or diary entries
Never fabricate evidence. Courts punish falsehood. But never walk into litigation empty-handed.
8. Biggest Mistakes Men Make
The biggest mistakes are:
- ignoring early threats
- apologising in writing without legal advice
- transferring money without proper narration
- deleting chats
- meeting alone after threats
- involving family members emotionally
- delaying anticipatory bail or protection strategy
- believing “she will not file a case”
In modern relationships, legal preparation is not paranoia. It is survival.
Final Word
A relationship may end. But a false case, maintenance order, arrest, reputation loss or family prosecution can continue for years.
The law must protect genuine victims. But it must also protect innocent men from weaponised allegations.
Men should not misuse women. Women should not misuse law. Courts exist for justice, not revenge.
FAQs
Yes. If allegations involve cheating, false promise to marry, sexual exploitation, cruelty, threats or harassment, a breakup may become criminal litigation.
No. The Supreme Court has held that the promise must be false from the beginning and made in bad faith.
Yes, but vague and omnibus allegations against relatives can be challenged for quashing.
Yes, if the relationship qualifies as a relationship in the nature of marriage under law.
Preserve evidence, avoid private meetings, do not send emotional admissions, consult a criminal/family law expert, and prepare anticipatory protection strategy immediately.