Fraudulent misrepresentation that induces consent to a marriage is a ground for annulment of the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and such misrepresentation need not be made at the time of the marriage itself, but can be made earlier.

G.N.Prasad, J.

1. This is an appeal under Sec.28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The appellant is the plaintiff whose petition for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge of Saran.

2. The petition was founded on the ground of fraud within the meaning of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Sec.12 of the Act, which is in the following terms:-

-

"12 (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely:-

- X X X X X

(c) that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner is required under Sec. 5, the consent of such guardian was obtained by force or fraud;"

3. The petitioner was admittedly a little above 18 years of age at the time of the impugned marriage which took place in May, 1959. Therefore, in order to succeed in the present proceeding the petitioner had to prove that her marriage with the respondent had been solemnized by procuring her consent to the marriage by fraud.

4. The case of the petitioner as made out in the petition and also supported by her ex parte evidence in court is as follows Just before her marriage had been solemnized she had overheard her father tellina her mother that he had fixed up a husband for the petitioner, who was in an affluent financial condition and was between 25 and 30 years of age. Having heard these particulars, the petitioner raised no objection to the proposed marriage: and it might be said that she impliedly consented to the marriage through silence. At the time of solemnization of the marriage, she was, as is customary in a Hindu family, particularly in a rural area, under a heavy veil in consequence of which she could not see the bridegroom. The bridegroom, viz., the respondent, left on the very next morning of the marriage without the petitioners roksadi having been performed.

Some time in the early part of 1960, the respondent filed a criminal case against her father under Sec. 498, Indian Penal Code. Thereupon, her father, who had earlier declined to send the petitioner to the respondents house, agreed to her going there and the prosecution against him was withdrawn. On the 15th April, 1960, the father took her to the respondents house, where for the first time, in the night, she discovered that besides being a man of very ordinary means, the respondent was aged even more than her father, that is to say, over 60 years She wept and wept, took no food for two days and insisted upon being sent back to her fathers house, whereupon the respondent beat her. However, she later strealthily escaped to her fathers place, but the father chided her; and so she left his place as well and took shelter at her uncles place.

Thereupon, the defendant started another case under Sec. 498, Indian Penal Code, against her parents and uncle. However, the respondent succeeded in taking her to his house, where she was confined in a room. The petitioner again succeeded in escaping from the respondents house; and this time she took shelter in her nanihal Ultimately, in March, 1961, the petitioner filed the present petition for dissolution of marriage with the respondent on the ground of fraud in the matter of procurement of her consent whereby her marriage was solemnized. According to the petitioner, she had no cohabitation with the respondent at all.

5. The respondent appeared in the proceeding and filed written statement denying the allegations contained in the petition, but he did not contest the petition at the time of hearing. The petitioner accordingly pledged her oath in support of her allegations, which remained uncontroverted and which have been substantially accepted by the learned Judge to be correct.

6. The learned Judge has, however, rejected the petition substantially on two grounds: (1) that there was