Romance Scams and Online Matrimonial Fraud in India — How They Work and Legal Remedies

This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.

Overview

Matrimonial and dating platforms are meant to help people find a life partner or a relationship. Fraudsters exploit the same trust to run what is commonly called a romance scam — a fake profile, a carefully built emotional relationship, and, eventually, a request for money that the victim would never have agreed to for a stranger. A common variant on matrimonial sites adds a further layer: a promised gift or parcel from abroad, followed by a call demanding “customs duty,” “courier clearance fee,” or “processing charges” before the (non-existent) gift can be released. This article explains how these scams are typically executed, the criminal provisions that apply under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Information Technology Act, 2000, and how a victim can report the fraud and seek redress.

How the Scam Typically Operates

The fake profile. The fraudster creates a profile on a matrimonial or dating platform using photographs and personal details lifted from someone else’s social media, often with an attractive or sympathetic backstory — frequently that of an NRI professional, a member of the armed forces posted abroad, or a widow/widower.
Building trust. Over weeks or months of messages, calls, and video interactions (sometimes using a different, complicit person on camera), the fraudster cultivates an emotional relationship and steers the conversation toward marriage or a serious relationship, lowering the victim’s guard.
The gift or parcel pretext. The fraudster announces that a gift — jewellery, foreign currency, an expensive phone, or similar — has been sent to the victim from abroad.
The “customs” or “courier” call. Days later, a second person, posing as a customs officer, airport authority, or courier company representative, calls or messages the victim stating that the parcel is held at customs and that a duty, penalty, GST, or clearance fee must be paid — usually through instant bank transfer or UPI — before it can be released.
Escalating demands. Once a payment is made, further demands typically follow — additional “penalties,” “insurance,” or “anti-money-laundering clearance” — each payment presented as the final one needed to release the gift or continue the relationship.
Disappearance. The profile, phone numbers, and payment accounts go dead once the victim refuses to pay further or realises no gift or partner ever existed.

Variants of the same scheme use a loan or medical-emergency pretext instead of a gift (“I am stranded and need money to fly to India to meet you”) rather than a customs-duty demand, but the underlying mechanism — a fabricated online identity used to extract repeated payments — is the same.

The Statutory Framework

Cheating — Section 318, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The core offence in a romance or matrimonial scam is cheating under Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Section 318(1) defines cheating as deceiving a person and thereby fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver property, or to do or omit to do something that causes or is likely to cause harm. Where the cheating induces the victim to part with money or property, Section 318(4) applies specifically, and is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and a fine. A general act of cheating not falling within the more specific sub-sections is punishable under Section 318(2) with imprisonment up to three years, or fine, or both.

Cheating by Personation — Section 319, BNS

Using a fabricated identity — a false name, a stolen photograph, or a fictional life story — to carry out the cheating separately attracts Section 319 of the BNS, which defines cheating by personation as cheating “by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is,” an offence that applies whether the person impersonated is real or entirely imaginary. It carries imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or fine, or both. This is the provision that squarely covers a fake matrimonial profile built on someone else’s photographs and a fictitious biography.

Personating a Public Servant — Section 204, BNS

Where, as in the customs-duty pretext, a caller falsely claims to be a customs officer, police officer, or other government functionary and, in that assumed character, demands a payment, the impersonation of a public servant is separately punishable under Section 204 of the BNS: “Whoever pretends to hold any particular office as a public servant, knowing that he does not hold such office… and in such assumed character does or attempts to do any act under colour of such office” is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term of not less than six months, extending up to three years, and fine.

Information Technology Act, 2000

Because the fake profile, chats, and calls are carried out through a computer resource or communication device, two provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) apply directly:

Section 66D punishes cheating by personation using a communication device or computer resource with imprisonment which may extend to three years and a fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. A fake matrimonial profile operated to extract money falls within this provision.
Section 66C punishes the fraudulent or dishonest use of another person’s “electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature” with imprisonment up to three years and a fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. Where the fraudster lifts a real person’s photographs and identifying details to construct the fake profile — as opposed to inventing an entirely fictitious persona — this provision may apply to that separate misuse of the real person’s identity, in addition to the cheating actually practised on the victim.

An Illustration From a Reported Case

A recent Kerala High Court bail order illustrates how these provisions are actually invoked by investigating agencies. In Muhammed Ramees v. State of Kerala (Kerala High Court, Bail Appl. No. 9423 of 2025, decided 18 August 2025), the accused was alleged to have misrepresented himself as being connected with a matrimonial site, forwarded fake profiles of prospective brides to a person seeking a match for a relative, and thereby induced the complainant to part with money. The case was registered under Section 318(4) of the BNS and Section 66D of the IT Act — the same provisions discussed above. The High Court granted bail having regard to the period of custody already undergone, observing that the allegations, though serious, did not warrant further detention. The order is limited to bail and does not decide guilt or innocence; the underlying criminal case remains pending, and this article expresses no view on the truth of the allegations. It is referenced here only to show that Sections 318(4) BNS and 66D IT Act are the provisions actually applied to this fact pattern in practice, not as a considered ruling on the merits of a romance or matrimonial scam charge.

How and Where to Report

Call the national cybercrime helpline, 1930, as soon as an unauthorised or fraudulent payment is discovered — prompt reporting improves the chance of freezing the funds in the recipient’s account before withdrawal.
File a complaint on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (cybercrime.gov.in), operated by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Ministry of Home Affairs, which routes financial-fraud complaints to the relevant bank and law-enforcement agency.
Lodge an FIR at the local police station or cyber cell, citing Sections 318 and 319 of the BNS, Section 204 of the BNS where a public official was impersonated, and Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act as applicable to the facts.
Preserve evidence before it is lost — screenshots of the profile and chat history, call logs and recordings if available, payment records (UPI/bank transaction IDs), and any documents or images the fraudster sent (courier “receipts,” fake customs notices, and similar).
Report the fake profile to the matrimonial or dating platform itself, so that it can be taken down and the platform’s own record of the account (registration email, IP address, phone number) can be preserved for the investigation.

Practical Points to Remember

No genuine customs authority, courier company, or bank ever asks for duty, penalty, or “clearance” payments over a phone call or through a personal UPI ID; formal customs dues are paid through official channels, not to an individual’s bank account.
A request for money from someone met exclusively online, who has never been met in person and who gives shifting reasons for not meeting, is itself a warning sign — regardless of how long the online relationship has continued.
Verifying a prospective match’s identity independently — a reverse image search of profile photographs, and insisting on a video call and, eventually, an in-person meeting before any financial dealing — is a simple precaution that defeats most fake-profile schemes.
A victim who has already made a payment should report it immediately rather than making further payments to “recover” the first one; every subsequent demand in such schemes is itself part of the fraud.
Whether a particular set of facts supports a complaint under one or more of the provisions discussed above depends on the specific evidence, and a victim may consider consulting a qualified advocate before or alongside filing a police complaint.

Takeaway

A romance or matrimonial-site scam is, at its legal core, cheating practised through a fabricated online identity — conduct squarely addressed by Sections 318 and 319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, together with Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and, where a public official is impersonated to extract a “customs” or “clearance” payment, Section 204 of the BNS as well. Recognising the pattern early — an online-only relationship, an unexpected gift, and an urgent payment demand — and reporting promptly to 1930 or the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal remains the most effective way to limit the loss and support prosecution.

Useful Resources

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.