The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a real consent to the solemnization of marriage and the limited scope of 'fraud' under Hindu Law in the context of annulment of marriage.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed by the appellant against the impugned Order dated 31.03.2022 vide which the application filed by the appellant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed.

2. The facts in brief are that a petition under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (`Act of 1955', in short) was filed for annulment of marriage on behalf of Ms. Ashi Kumar (who was the petitioner in the petition before the learned Judge, Family Courts and shall be referred as `respondent' in the present Appeal). The respondent, a permanent resident of Ghaziabad got married to Mr.Assem Aggarwal, resident of New Zealand, (who was the defendant in the petition before the learned Judge, Family Courts and shall be referred as `appellant' in the present Appeal) on 04.10.2009 according to Hindu Rites and Customs at Railway Officers' Club, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi.

3. The appellant at the time of marriage was staying at Le Meridian Hotel, New Delhi. Before marriage, it was represented by the appellant's family that they would demand no dowry and the respondent was also led to believe that after marriage, she would accompany the appellant to New Zealand.

4. On the next date of marriage i.e. 05.10.2009, respondent as per custom, went to her parental house at Ghaziabad and the appellant had promised to come on 06.10.2009 at her parental house for registration of marriage and completion of VISA formalities. However, as a part of conspiracy, neither the appellant nor his parents turned up. It was alleged that from very first day of negotiation for marriage, the appellant had started demanding cash of Rs.40 lakhs and a BMW car from the respondent. Since the respondent refused to accede to these demands, the appellant abused her and no cohabitation took place between them. It was alleged that the appellant did not complete the VISA formalities of the respondent since the dowry demands were not fulfilled. This act on the part of the appellant is claimed to be an act of fraud against the respondent. It is further claimed that the entire conduct of the appellant indicated mala-fide intention to play fraud against the respondent and to grab handsome amount.

5. It was alleged that the appellant left for New Zealand before the scheduled departure date i.e. 22.10.2009 without informing the respondent and without completing the VISA formalities. It is further claimed that the appellant kept giving the respondent and her parents false assurances that they would resolve the entire disputes amicably in the period of 5 to 6 months. However, they were only buying time so that no legal action is initiated by the respondent. The calls made by the respondent were disconnected and the appellant refused to talk to the respondent.

6. The respondent then made a complaint against the appellant and his family members before the Special Police unit for Women & Children Cell (SPUW&C), Nanakpura, New Delhi on 07.09.2010. In compliance of the notice of the complaint of the respondent, Mr. Kamlesh Gupta filed some documents and a false story at the instance of the appellant before the official of the SPUW&C. The respondent was able to get the copy of those documents through RTI only on 06.07.2011. She then understood that a fraud has been played and she has been cheated by the appellant and his family members in order to grab huge dowry. The appellant left the country leaving behind the respondent to suffer for her entire life. The respondent thus sought annulment of marriage solemnized on 04.10.2009 with the appellant.

7. Though the appellant had filed a Written Statement before the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts but his defence was stuck off vide Order dated 03.04.2019. The Issues were framed and the evidence had been recorded. The part final arguments were also addressed at which stage, the appellant filed the present application under