The court reaffirmed that to annul a marriage on grounds of fraud, the burden of proof lies on the appellant to demonstrate concealment of facts; failure to provide personal testimony results in adverse inferences.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 12(1)(c) - Appeal for annulment of marriage based on allegations of fraud due to concealment of prior relationship - Marriage conducted on 7.2.2016; no children born - Key evidence includes a police FIR alleging prior relationship by wife - Supreme Court principles on evidence discussed - No concealment proven by evidence; mother of appellant testified against his claims. (Paras 2, 10, 12, 14, 15)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - The court may presume unproduced evidence would be unfavorable to the party withholding it. Appellant did not provide personal testimony, creating adverse inference - Claims dismissed due to lack of substantive evidence and legal merit. (Paras 11, 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The appellant-husband sought annulment of marriage citing fraud, claiming the wife concealed a pre-existing relationship with another respondent, which she denied. Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint leading to an FIR against respondent No. 2.

Findings of Court:
Family Court found insufficient grounds for annulment; insufficient evidence of fraud or concealment by respondent No. 1; judgment upheld with no reversible error.

Issues: The main issues included whether the concealment of facts warranted annulment and if the wife's previous relationship was disclosed honestly.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that personal knowledge of the events must be provided by the party directly involved; mere evidence from an attorney lacking personal knowledge is inadmissible; claims of deceit and fraud were not substantiated.

Result: Appeal dismissed without costs.

Table of Content
1. marriage annulment based on alleged fraud. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. issues framed and evidence presented regarding fraud. (Para 4 , 6 , 8)
3. court's analysis on presentation of evidence. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 14)
4. legal standards for evidence admission and credibility. (Para 12 , 13 , 15)
5. dismissal of appeal due to lack of merit. (Para 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT :

ROHIT KAPOOR, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband against the judgment and decree dated 24.4.2025 passed by the Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby the petition filed by him under Section 12 (1)(c) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for seeking annulment of his marriage with respondent No.1-wife, has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the appellant is that his marriage was solemnised with respondent No.1 on 7.2.2016 and they had been residing and cohabiting as husband and wife at his village. No child was born from their wedlock. It is alleged by the appellant that prior to the solemnisation of the marriage, he had categorically asked respondent No.1 as to whether she is having any relationship or liking for any other person, however the same was denied by her. In the month of November 2017, one video was posted on social media and on many other websites, in which respondents No.1 and 2 were seen in a compromising position. Respondent No.1 moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib against respondent No.2 and his family members and in pursuance thereof FIR No.100 dated 30.12.2017 was registered under Sections 376 /506/120-B of IPC and under Section 66 of the I.T. Act, wherein she allegedly admitted her relationship with respondent No.2 since 2012 and also admitted that she had not disclosed about the relationship to the appellant and his family members. Annulment of the marriage was sought on the ground of fraud alleging concealment of prior relationship, by filing petition under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act.

3. Respondent No.1 in her reply denied all allegations including the factum of alleged meeting between the appellant and her before the Roka ceremony and it was stated that she never met the appellant before the marriage, and that he has created a false story.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to annulment of marriage, as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR.

3. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present case? OPR.

4. Whether the petitioner has concealed the true and material facts from the court? OPR.

5. Relief.

5. The appellant/petitioner, in order to prove his case examined PW1 SC Satinder Singh, who brought the record regarding FIR No. l00 dated 30.12.2017 lodged by respondent No.1 and proved the copy of the same as Ex. P3. Thereafter the appellant examined PW2 Harjit Kaur, who is his mother and special power of attorney. She brought on record the attested copy of the power of attorney Ex. P1, DVD as Ex. P2, copy of FIR as Ex. P3, copy of complaint as Ex. P4. The appellant also examined one Baljinder Singh, his uncle, who supported the version of the appellant/petitioner. The appellant also tendered certain documents like the certified copy of application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act as Ex.P5, certified copy of order dated 21.1.2020 as Ex.P6 and copy of power of attorney dated 14.3.2018 as Ex.P7 and closed his evidence. No evidence was led on behalf of respondent No.1.

6. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after discussing in detail the evidence brought on record, the learned Family Court decided issue No.1 against the appellant, inter-alia on the ground that he has failed to prove the allegations regarding his consent having been obtained by fraud due to concealment of facts by respondent No.1. While deciding the