Concealment of prior marriage and misrepresentation of income constitute fraud under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, voiding the marriage due to compromised consent.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J.

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984, challenging the Judgement dated 19.01.2024 [Impugned Judgement] passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Rohini (North) District Courts [Family Court], in the matter of “Shweta Pareek née Bhatt vs. Sameer Pareek” bearing H.M.A. No.126 of 2017, whereby the learned Family Court allowed the Petition filed by the Respondent herein under Section 12(1)(c) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 [HMA].

ISSUE IN HAND:

2. By way of the Impugned Judgment, the learned Family Court has annulled the marriage between the parties under Section 12(1)(c) of the HMA, and accordingly issued a decree to that effect. The primary terms on which the learned Family Court has deemed it necessary to annul the marriage are: -

(i) The concealment by the Appellant of the fact of his prior marriage, and (ii) The discrepancy in the salary figures that had been set out by the Appellant.

3. These findings were based on an analysis of the online profile of the Appellant on the matrimonial portal “www.shaadi.com” and on the basis of which the Respondent herein had responded to the advertised profile of the Appellant.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that: -

(i) The learned Family Court has come to incorrect conclusion that there was concealment by the Appellant of the marital status; and in support of the same, he would seek to canvass that the Respondent herein was well aware of the Appellant’s previous marriage, as the same had been disclosed to her, and for this purpose, particular reliance is placed on the meeting held on 16.11.2014 at Cafe Coffee Day between the Appellant, the Respondent, and the Appellant’s sister, during which the fact of the Appellant’s earlier marriage was not only revealed but also discussed in detail.

(ii) The proceedings under Section 12(1)(c) of the HMA seeking annulment of marriage is belated/barred by limitation, insofar as, at least on the date of the complaint filed by the Respondent in the C.A.W. Cell, Prashant Vihar, Delhi, on 27.01.2016, which culminated in the registration of an FIR and from the said FIR No. 0401/2016 dated 12.05.2016 [FIR], it is evident that there existed some doubt in the mind of the Respondent, as regards the Appellant being previously married. He would thus submit that the filing of the annulment petition on 21.08.2017 is belated.

(iii) Placing reliance upon various chat messages exchanged between the parties, he would contend that, it is clear that the marital relationship between them was cordial and harmonious, and the case set up by the Respondent is not bona fide.

(iv) He further refers to the assertions made by the Appellant in the pleadings, which have also been reproduced in the Impugned Judgment at paragraph Nos. 12 and 25, and draws the Court’s attention in particular to the following extract:

“12. The opening statement on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondent has committed three-fold frauds with the petitioner. The first fraud was mentioning his incorrect marital status. The second fraud is regarding his incorrect date of birth / horoscope. The third fraud is regarding his incorrect income. It is argued that the respondent has admitted that his marriage with the petitioner was solemnized through matrimonial website Shaadi.com. He has also admitted that his profile mentions his marita