Consent obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation is void, allowing for a declaration of nullity of marriage and reliefs based on cruelty.

1 Petition under S.10, 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act. Petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The petitioner is a member of the Church of South India and the respondent is a member of Syrian Jacobite Christian Community.

2 At the time of marriage, the petitioner was a practising Gynaecologist after having passed her M. B. B. S. and D. G. O. and at present she is employed at S. U. T. Hospital, Trivandrum. The respondent is an Engineer employed in Traco Cables Ltd., a Public Sector undertaking of the Government of Kerala. Their marriage was solemnized on 29th November 1993 at Syrian Jacobite Puthen Church, Kundara as per the religious custom prevailing among the members of the Syrian Jacobite Church. It was an arranged marriage. The proposal for the marriage appeared in the matrimonial column of the Malayala Manorama, on behalf of the respondent. This was followed by negotiation among the members of the petitioner's and respondent's families and the marriage was later settled.

3 At the time of negotiation, it was represented to the petitioner that the respondent had already secured a highly paid job in Saudi Arabia that he would take the petitioner with him to that country immediately after the marriage and that the respondent would secure for the petitioner a suitable job there. The respondent has also shown certain papers and documents written in arabic to show that he secured a job in Saudi Arabia. The respondent and his parents also represented to the petitioner and her parents that he had to join duty in Saudi Arabia by the middle of December, 1993 and on that ground, he urged the petitioner and her parents to get the marriage solemnized within the shortest possible time. It is alleged in the petition that believing the representations of the respondent and his parents the marriage was hurriedly solemnized dispensing with the usual religious practice of announcing three banns of marriage on three consecutive Sundays in the Church. The negotiation for the marriage started during the second week of November 1993 and the betrothal was fixed on 18th November 1993 and the marriage was solemnized on 29th November 1993.

4 After marriage they lived together at the residence of the petitioner at Trivandrum for three days. During this period they spent one day at Kovalam and thereafter they lived at the residence of the respondent at Kundara. According to the petitioner, even during the first night, the respondent preferred to sleep all alone in his bed and the petitioner was directed to sleep on another bed. On the second day they spent their night at the Guest House at Kovalam. The petitioner would allege that on that day she found that the respondent was having anxiety neurosis and he was literally shivering in front of the petitioner. It was also alleged that even though the petitioner took initiative, the respondent did not show any inclination to consummate the marriage. Therefore, the petitioner suspected that the respondent was impotent.

5 The petitioner gradually discovered that the respondent was playing fraud on her. The story of having secured employment in Saudi Arabia and the related matters were all utter falsehood. The papers and documents shown at the time of negotiation, before marriage, were all fabricated. The petitioner's father was a senior I. A. S. Officer under the Government of Kerala. Only after the marriage she has come to know that the respondent did not have an adequate income from his employment to support his family as his two brothers were students at that time. The petitioner has agreed to marry the respondent on the specific assurance given by him that he has secured a lucrative job in Saudi Arabia. The respondent was deliberately cheating the petitioner and her parents. Therefore, she prays for a decree declaring that the marriage is a nullity on the ground that her consent was obtained by fraud. She has also prayed for a decree of divorce on the ground that the respondent has tr