Intentional misrepresentation of age in matrimonial advertisements constitutes mental cruelty, justifying grounds for divorce.

JUDGMENT :

M. Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant wife and Mr. B. K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent husband.

2. The appeal has been filed by the appellant wife against the divorce decree granted on the respondent husband’s petition, by the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, vide judgment dated 22.06.2022 passed in FC(Civil) Case No. 174/2014.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant wife had published an advertisement, giving her personal details for matrimony. In the advertisement dated 01.02.2009 published by the appellant wife, the age of the appellant was shown to be 31 years of age. After a meeting of the families of the appellant and the respondent, the marriage between the parties took place on 10.05.2009. On the date of the marriage, the respondent was 41 years of age, while the appellant should have been 31 years of age. Later, it transpired that the appellant was actually 43½ years of age on the date of the marriage, instead of being 31 years old.

4. Due to various reasons, which had disturbed the matrimonial life of the appellant and the respondent, the appellant left the matrimonial home on 10.04.2010. The appellant lived in her parents’ house between the period from 10.04.2010 till 30.10.2010. The appellant returned to the matrimonial home on 31.10.2010. However, she again left on 25.12.2010. Thus the appellant lived in the matrimonial home for approximately 12 months and did not return to the matrimonial home after 25.12.2010.

5. The other issue to be decided is with regard to the appellant having filed a domestic violence case against the respondent husband and mother-in-law. The domestic violence case against the mother-in-law was however set aside by this Court and the domestic violence case against the respondent husband was dismissed by the learned Trial Court for non-prosecution. The learned Trial Court, while deciding FC (Civil) Case No. 174/2014, had granted the divorce decree, on the ground that the respondent husband had been able to prove that he had been subjected/treated with cruelty by the appellant, not only on the issue of the appellant giving a wrong age in the advertisement, but also making a false claim that she had become pregnant, which the appellant later stated that it had been terminated. The pregnancy statement having turned out to be false, the same implied that there was no question of termination of pregnancy by the appellant. The learned Trial Court had also come to a finding that the appellant wife left the matrimonial home on her own volition and filed the domestic violence case against the respondent and mother-in-law, which reflected her intention to bring the marriage to an end.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that no cruelty was inflicted upon the respondent by the appellant and that there was a typographical error in the advertisement dated 01.02.2009, showing the appellant as 31 years of age. He submits that the age of the appellant in the advertisement should have been 43½ years, inasmuch as, the appellant was 2½ years older than the respondent husband. He further submits that even if there was a misrepresentation of the age of the appellant, the respondent and his family having physically seen the appellant prior to the marriage, they could have declined to participate in the marriage. However, having accepted the appellant in real life, they could not turn around and take a stand that the appellant did not appear to be what she had stated in the advertisement.

7. The counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant wanted to go back to the matrimonial home, the respondent never inv