Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4530
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M. AKBAR ALI
V.D. Grahalakshmi
Versus
T. Prashanth
C.M.A.No.1305 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided On :Decided on : 21-11-2011
For the Appellant:Manoj Sreevalsan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:AR.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for P. Anandan Nagarajan, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suppression of material facts, such as the registration of a prior marriage, amounts to fraud under Sec.12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, rendering the marriage voidable.
Headnote:
Fraud - Hindu Marriage - Sec.12(1)(c) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sec.19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 - Sec.114(e) of the Evidence Act - Sec.68 of the Evidence Act - Sec.7, 7-A, 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act - Sec.161(3) of Cr.P.C
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a wife, filed an appeal against the family court's order annulling her marriage with the respondent, a film celebrity, on the grounds of fraud due to suppression of material fact of a prior registration of a marriage with the Marriage Registrar. The respondent had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, and later discovered the appellant's prior marriage, leading to the annulment of their marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suppression of the prior marriage registration amounted to fraud under Sec.12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, rendering the marriage voidable. The court upheld the family court's decision to declare the marriage null and void.
Issues: The key issues were whether the registration of the prior marriage constituted substantial proof of a Hindu marriage, whether the certificate of marriage was a public document, whether the suppression of the registration of marriage amounted to fraud, and whether the respondent was entitled to the relief of annulment of his marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the registration of marriage is not substantial proof of a Hindu marriage if one party repudiates it. It also determined that the certificate of marriage is a public document, and the suppression of such registration of marriage amounts to fraud under Sec.12(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the court concluded that the marriage was voidable and could be annulled.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the family court's decision to declare the marriage null and void was confirmed.
G.M. AKBAR ALI,J.,
1. Appeal filed under Sec.19of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the Fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai in FCOP No.1992 of 2007 dated 30.4.2009.
2. The wife is the appellant. The appeal is preferred against the order of the family court dated 30.4.2009 declaring the marriage between the appellant and the respondent as null and void. An interesting question arises in this appeal is whether an husband can avoid a marriage on the ground of fraud due to the suppression of material fact of a prior registration of a marriage with the Marriage Registrar. For the sake of convenience, the wife is referred to as appellant and the husband is referred to as respondent in this appeal.
3. The facts leading to filing an application under Sec.12(1) (c)of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are as follows:
4. The respondent T. Prasanth is a film celebrity. The appellant is also a graduate and belongs to a decent family and with the blessings of the well wishers of both the family the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 1.9.2005 according to Hindu Rites and Customs.
5. After the marriage, they lived together happily. The newly married couple enjoyed their initial period of married life. However, all happiness short lived and problems arose between the couple as well as in the family, details of which are not necessary.
6. The appellant became pregnant and the same was confirmed on 9.12.2005. The appellant went to her parents house on 2.1.2006 and she gave birth to a male child on 31.7.2006. After leaving the matrimonial home, the problem between the couple as well as the families worsened and according to the respondent the appellant and her family began to campaign so as to malign the name and reputation of the respondent.
7. The respondent was not informed about the ‘Valaikappu’ (“TAMIL”) function or the birth of the child or his naming ceremony. The respondent tried to resolve the problem through his friends and relatives. But there was no response from the appellant.
8. Therefore, the respondent filed a petition in OP No.2721 of 2006 on the file of the principal family court at Chennai for restitution of conjugal rights.
9. In fact, the proceedings started with the Honourable Judge working towards re-union and there were some signs of reconciliation between the parties. However, the gap widened when a criminal complaint was filed by the appellant for the alleged offence under Sec.498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the respondent did not loose hopes for re-union.
10. But to his surprise and shock, on 11.6.2007, he was informed that the appellant had earlier married one Narayanan Venu Prasad on 30.11.1998 under Hindu Rites and Customs and the said marriage has been registered in the office of the Registrar of Marriage on 30.12.1998. The respondent obtained a copy of the certificate of marriage and was totally shaken.
11. According to the respondent, the appellant or any member of family, never disclosed the registration of such marriage either to the petitioner or to any members of the family. When confronted, the appellant denied such marriage. Therefore, the respondent filed a criminal complaint. The respondent did not know whether the previous marriage still subsists but had he been informed of the earlier marriage, he would never have consented for the marriage with the appellant. In any event, according to the respondent, the suppression and non disclosure of this material fact by the appellant and members of her family amounts to fraud.
12. It his further contention that the consent of the respondent was obtained by deception and concealment of material fact and hence, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is a voidable marriage and has to be annulled by the competent court. Stating so, the respondent has filed a petition under Sec.12(1)(c)of the Act.
13. The appellant filed a detailed counter denyin
