Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 77

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, DONADI RAMESH, JJ.
Ankita Devi – Appellant
Versus
Jagdependra Singh @ Kanhaiya – Respondent
First Appeal No. 1391 of 2023
Decided On : 16-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Vinay Mishra, Mata Achal Mishra.

The judgment establishes that not every misrepresentation or concealment of fact constitutes fraud under the Hindu Marriage Act, and it emphasizes the importance of proving grounds for annulment.

Headnote:
Fraud - Challenge to Impugned Judgment - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 11
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-wife challenged the dismissal of her petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging that the marriage was an outcome of fraud. The respondent-husband contested the claim, stating that the marriage was valid and the appellant's change of petition from Section 12 to Section 11 was a conscious decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the grounds under Section 11 of the Act were not established and the change of petition from Section 12 to Section 11 was a conscious decision of the appellant. The Court also considered the appellant's employment and financial means, concluding that the fraud claim was not substantiated.
Issues: Validity of marriage under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the appellant's claim of fraud
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that not every kind of misrepresentation or concealment of fact can be termed as fraud under Section 12 of the Act. It also highlighted the difference between void and voidable marriages and the necessity of proving grounds for annulment.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage, as the Court found no legal infirmity in the impugned order.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Mata Achal Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

2. The appellant-plaintiff (wife) has come forward to challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the Family Court in Matrimonial Suit No. 272 of 2018 (Km. Ankita Devi vs. Shri Jagdependra Singh @ Kanhaiya), whereby petition filed under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the dismissal of the petition under Section 11 of the Act is patently illegal. He submits that the appellant-plaintiff (wife) had initially filed a Matrimonial Petition No. 272 of 2018 on 10.2.2018 under Section 12 of the Act wherein an amendment application dated 30.3.2019 was filed, which was allowed by the Family Court vide order dated 22.2.2021 on payment of cost and Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was deleted and in place thereof, Section 11 of the Act was incorporated. It is pointed out that the respondent-husband (defendant) challenged the said order by filing First Appeal No. 649 of 2021 (Jagdeevendra Singh @ Kannahaiya vs. Km. Ankita Devi) before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 1.3.2023 and the proceedings of the divorce petition were directed to be decided expeditiously. It is further submitted that thereafter vide order dated 25.5.2023 the matter was directed to be proceeded exparte against the husband, who although appeared before the Court below and filed his written statement but absented himself. The appellant-wife (plaintiff) appeared as PW-1 and examined herself and filed the marriage registration certificate, Allahabad Bank passbook and Aadhar Card of the appellant. It is submitted that she was working as Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi and the marriage was got registered under duress as mother of the appellant-wife was a heart patient and her treatment in AIIMS was required and she was not in a position to get her treated in AIIMS because of financial constraints. It was submitted that therefore the marriage was an outcome of fraud and thus, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the petition filed under Section 11 of the Act is liable to be allowed.

4. It is also submitted that admitted fact of the case is that initially petition was filed before the Family Court under Section 12 of the Act, which was deleted and Section 11 of the Act was incorporated, therefore, any other relief in the facts and circumstances was also liable to be considered and granted. Submission, therefore, is that even by ignoring the grounds of Section 11 of the Act, the relief should have been granted to the appellant-plaintiff herein and the marriage was liable to be declared void.

5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

6. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to take notice of Sections 5, 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which are quoted as under:

“5. Conditions for a Hindu marriage- A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:

(i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage.

(ii) at the time of marriage, neither party:

(a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind.

(b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder or such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children.

(iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of twenty-one years and the bride, the age of eighteen years at the time of the marriage.

(iv) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two.

(v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage govern