Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 174

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Gautam Kumar Choudhary, JJ
Priyanka Sahi – Appellant
Versus
Siddarth Rao – Respondent
F.A. No. 213 of 2019 | F.A. No. 23 of 2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashish Gautam, Pankaj Srivastava
For the Respondents: Sunil Singh

Fraud under Section 12(1)(c) includes concealment of material facts like pre-marital relationships. Permanent alimony is determined by balancing the payer's financial capacity and the recipient's reasonable needs, aiming for a fair, non-punitive amount that reflects the standard of living during the marriage without strict mathematical formulas.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 12(1)(c), 25, and 27 - Voidable marriage - Annulment on grounds of fraud - Concealment of pre-marital live-in relationship - Permanent alimony and maintenance - Determination of quantum - The expression 'perverse' pertains to findings not supported by evidence or failing to adhere to logical reasoning (Para 37). Cruelty in matrimonial matters does not require a fixed definition and is dependent on conduct, social strata, and the capacity of the spouse to tolerate such behaviour (Paras 46-55). When determining alimony, courts must balance the financial capacity of the payer and the needs of the recipient, ensuring the award is reasonable, not punitive, and reflective of the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage (Paras 73-84, 91).

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Dead wood marriage - The doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is recognized as a ground to avoid redundant litigation when the matrimonial bond is effectively extinct (Paras 66-68). An appellate court, while not meant to act merely as a substitute for the lower court, must ensure the impugned order does not suffer from legal infirmity (Para 37).

Facts of the case:
Appeals were filed against a judgment annulling a marriage on grounds of fraud and providing a lump sum as permanent alimony. The wife sought an increase in alimony, alleging miscalculation, while the husband challenged the annulment, claiming lack of proper notice and denying the allegations of fraud and cruelty.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the annulment of the marriage, observing that the concealment of a prior live-in relationship constituted fraud. Considering the parties had been separated for years and the marriage was effectively defunct, the court affirmed the dissolution of the union. Regarding alimony, the court found the existing amount inadequate given the respondent's financial capacity and adjusted it to a one-time settlement amount.

Issues: The main issues were whether the marriage was voidable due to fraudulent concealment of material facts, whether the procedure followed by the lower court was legally sound, and the determination of a just and fair quantum of permanent alimony.

Ratio Decidendi: Fraud under Section 12(1)(c) encompasses concealment of material facts, such as a prior live-in relationship, that affects the validity of free consent to a sacramental marriage. Permanent alimony is not subject to a strict mathematical formula but must reflect the status of parties, financial capacity, and standard of living to prevent destitution.

Result: Appeals disposed of with the decree of annulment affirmed and permanent alimony enhanced to a one-time settlement.

Table of Content
1. procedural consolidation of appeals under the family courts act, 1984. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. factual background and procedural history of the matrimonial dispute. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
3. evidence and witness testimonies regarding marriage fraud and dowry demands. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
4. legal requirements for voidable marriage and annulment based on fraud. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
5. definition and scope of mental and physical cruelty in matrimonial law. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
6. affirmation of divorce decree based on fraud and irretrievable breakdown. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)
7. principles for determining equitable permanent alimony based on financial capacity. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95)
8. final judicial order regarding settlement and disposal of appeals. (Para 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100)

C.A.V. ON: 22.12.2025 PRONOUNCED ON:21/01/2026 [Per: Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.]

1. Both the appeals have been preferred under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

2. Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 16.02.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in Original M.M.Suit No. 68 of 2016, as such, both the appeals have been tagged together and taken up together for analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. F.A. No. 213 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner/appellant-wife against part of the judgment dated 16.2.2017 and decree dated 06.3.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in Original M.M.Suit No. 68 of 2016whereby and whereunder the Learned Family Court while allowing the petition filed under Section 12(1) (C) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by appellant/petitioner/wife has granted Rs. 30,00,000/-(Thirty Lakh) as permanent alimony to appellant and herein the amount of alimony has been challenged on the ground of miscalculation.

4. F.A. No. 23 of 2018 has been filed by the respondent/appellant- husband against the impugned judgment dated 16.2.2017 passed in Original M.M. Suit No.68 of 2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa whereby and whereunder the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa has been pleased to ex-parte disposed of the respondent’s-wife petition filed under section 12(1)(C) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for declaration of marriage as void between the parties and further the appellant-husband was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- to the respondent-wife as permanent alimony within six months from the date of the order.

Factual Matrix

5. The brief facts of the case, leading to filing of the petition filed under Section 12(1)(C) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the petitioner-wife, needs to be referred herein which are as under:

6. The petitioner's [the appellant in FA No. 213 of 2019] case, in brief, is that the marriage of petitioner-appellant and respondent-husband [the respondent in FA No. 213 of 2019] was solemnized on 02.12.2015 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Gorakhpur. The Chheka between petitioner and respondent was performed at Garhwa in presence of their relatives. The parent of the petitioner gave a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- in cash and other precious gifts. Various utensils, furniture and jewellery were also given to the respondent and his family members worth Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,70,000/- was also given for purchasing a car and Rs. 50,000/- for insuring the delivery of car, total Rs. 11,20,000/- was transferred by father of the petitioner in the bank account of Chambal Motor Car LLP having A/C No. 52000011838169 apart from this a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been transferred in the account of Sushant Rao maternal brother of respondent in account No. 81531409689

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 174

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHANDSujit Narayan Prasad, Gautam Kumar Choudhary, JJPriyanka Sahi – AppellantVersusSiddarth Rao – RespondentF.A. No. 213 of 2019 | F.A. No. 23 of 2018

Cases Referred (11)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Gautam Kumar Choudhary, JJ
Priyanka Sahi – Appellant
Versus
Siddarth Rao – Respondent
F.A. No. 213 of 2019 | F.A. No. 23 of 2018