Marriage can be declared voidable if consent is obtained through fraud or coercion, especially in cases involving serious allegations and the parties' young age.

ORDER :

The instant appeal has been preferred under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 19(2) of Family Court Act claiming the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and impugned judgment and decree dated 08.01.2024 passed by learned Family Court No. 2, Bikaner in Civil Misc. Case No.99/2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the respondent under section 12(1)(C) of Hindu Marriage Act may kindly be ordered to be dismissed."

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant and respondent were having good friendship. He further submits that there is allegation that respondent's cold drink was spiked on 31.01.2017 and when she lost her senses she was put in a vehicle and taken to a temple, where she was made to sign certain papers and then she was left home by the appellant and his friends and she was threatened that the same may not be disclosed to anyone. On 21.02.2017 also, respondent was forcibly taken to Bikaner by the appellant and his friends and she was forced to sign certain documents. When the respondent informed her family members about the said incident, immediately FIR No.108/2017 was registered for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376, 511, 354D, 384, 328 & 147 of IPC whereby investigation began. The respondent filed the petition, which led to impugned order for declaring the marriage voidable.

2.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a lawful marriage had happened on 31.01.2017 and the same was also registered in the office of Municipal Corporation, Bikaner. He submits that all the necessary procedure of the marriage was followed. He further submits that appellant and respondent both are major and it was a voluntary marriage and it was only when the family members of the respondent pressurized her, the petition under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act was preferred. He also submits that appellant's application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is also pending before the Family Court and there is all the likelihood of the marriage having been sustained.

3. This Court finds that learned trial court framed four issues, which reads as follows:-

a) Whether a lawful marriage took place on 31.01.2017 between the parties and since the fraud was involved, was it a fit case to invoke provisions of section 12(2)(C) of the Hindu Marriage Act for declaring the marriage voidable.

b) Limitation

c) Whether there was any matrimonial relationship between the parties.

d) Relief.

3.1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and carefully examining the issue wise adjudication made by the learned trial court in light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the issues have been dealt with at length and since the allegations in FIR No.108/2017, which was registered for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376, 511, 354D, 384, 328 & 147 of IPC, have been sustained as the charge-sheet has been filed, whereby prima facie case has been found proved and trial is going on then, carrying on such marriage would be detrimental to the cause of justice. The pendency of application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not have any bearing upon the present appellant, as the allegations made in the FIR are of very serious nature.

3.2. This Court also takes note of the fact that appellant and the respondent both are very young and any forceful matrimonial alliance would never work in such a peculiar factual matrix. The respondent is a college going student and is having bright chances of studying further and making her career. Also the marriage is not consummated and the respondent is completely with her family members and supporting the criminal litigation against the present appellant. The factual matrix of the FIR has been reiterated by the respondent in the Family Court as well. The impugned order has threadbare assessed the provisions of se