The High Court of Delhi, in a significant ruling on matrimonial fraud, has affirmed that misrepresenting one’s marital history and income on a matrimonial website constitutes a “material fact or circumstance,” the concealment of which is a valid ground for annulling a marriage. A Division Bench of Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed an appeal challenging a Family Court’s decision to annul a marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The court upheld the annulment granted to a wife whose husband had falsely claimed to be “never married” and had significantly inflated his salary on his “shaadi.com” profile.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a petition filed by the wife (Respondent) seeking annulment of her marriage to the appellant (Husband). The alliance was arranged through the matrimonial portal “www.shaadi.com“. The wife later discovered that her husband had concealed a prior marriage and had misrepresented his annual income on his profile.
The Family Court, Rohini (North) District Courts, in its judgment dated January 19, 2024, allowed the wife’s petition and annulled the marriage. The court’s decision was based on two primary findings: the husband’s concealment of his prior marriage and the discrepancy in the salary figures he had advertised on the matrimonial platform. The husband challenged this decision before the High Court of Delhi.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant-husband contended that the Family Court had erred in its conclusion. He argued that the respondent-wife was aware of his previous marriage, alleging it was disclosed during a meeting on November 16, 2014. He also claimed the annulment petition, filed on August 21, 2017, was belated. He further submitted that his use of the word “unmarried” in subsequent pleadings was only meant to convey that he was not married to anyone else at the time of his marriage to the respondent. Finally, he stated that his parents had created the matrimonial profile and were unaware of his earlier marriage and divorce.
The respondent-wife countered these arguments, submitting that the husband’s explanation for using the word “unmarried” was unacceptable and an afterthought. She emphasized the clear distinction between “unmarried” and “divorced.” Her counsel argued that the husband had committed fraud by representing himself as “never married” and by stating an income far above the actual amount, thereby inducing her to enter into matrimony.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court conducted a detailed analysis of Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which allows for a marriage to be annulled if consent was obtained by fraud “as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent.”
The Bench observed that the husband’s profile unambiguously stated he was “never married.” The court rejected his attempt to interpret this as merely “unmarried” at the time of the second marriage, stating, “Such a contention is entirely flawed.” The judgment distinguished between the two terms: “‘Never married’ conveys a lifelong status, free from any prior marital tie, whereas ‘unmarried’ could ambiguously include those who are divorced or widowed.” The court refused to accept what it termed a “strained and self-serving interpretation.”
The court held that the core issue was whether the false particulars were so essential that the wife’s consent was procured under a mistaken belief induced by them. It concluded that the misrepresentation of marital history was not a minor omission. The judgment states, “Applying these principles to the present case, the deliberate misrepresentation of one’s marital history is not a trivial omission but a clear suppression of facts going to the root of a marriage. This was a detail that the Respondent was entitled to know before making the life-altering decision to marry the Appellant.”
Citing its own precedent in Rajinder Singh v. Pomila, the court reiterated that “pre-marital status of a party is a material fact which the other party must know before imparting consent for marriage.”
The court also found the misrepresentation of salary to be a material fact, upholding the Family Court’s reliance on the decision in Anurag Anand v. Sunita Anand. The Family Court had noted, “The income of the prospective husband is a material fact for such a girl to decide whether to go for an alliance with the person or not.” The husband had admitted during cross-examination that his salary was between 120k-130k USD, whereas his profile claimed “USD 200k and above.”
Furthermore, the High Court noted a fact not examined by the Family Court: the husband also had a child from his earlier marriage. The Bench observed, “we consider it necessary to emphasize, another critical aspect, which is the fact that the Appellant has a child from his earlier marriage. We believe that such a circumstance is profoundly material to any prospective spouse’s decision on whether to marry.”
Dismissing the husband’s claim that his parents created the profile, the court stated, “The Appellant has corresponded using the chat option provided for in the Portal and would certainly have ample opportunity to view, and if required, review the details set out therein. The Appellant has chosen to never do so.” The court also took judicial notice that matrimonial portals provide “Divorced” as a specific option for marital status.
Decision
Finding no infirmity in the Family Court’s judgment, the High Court concluded that the appeal was without merit. The Bench held that the husband’s profile deliberately misrepresented his marital status and income, which constituted concealment of a “material fact or circumstance” under the statute. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the decree of nullity was upheld.
