Wife's Misrepresentation About Having 'Sufficient Means' To Set Up Business Not 'Fraud' For Seeking Annulment Under Hindu Marriage Act: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife’s misrepresentation about having 'sufficient means' to set up business cannot be said to be of the nature as would amount to 'fraud or concealment' of material fact entitling the husband to seek annulment of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observations while dismissing a husband’s appeal challenging a family court order dismissing his petition for annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud by the wife under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

It was the husband’s case that he had a love marriage with the wife at an Arya Samaj Mandir in 2019 without their parents’ knowledge. He claimed that the marriage was not consummated and that the wife absconded thereafter.

He alleged that his consent for marriage was obtained under undue influence by the wife who furnished wrong information and claimed herself to be in the line of Beautician, similar to him. He also contended that the wife assured that they both would start up the business of beautician in a property owned by her.

The bench referred to the book “Mulla, in principles of Hindu Law, 11th edition” wherein it has been stated that marriage cannot be avoided by showing that the petitioner was induced to marriage by fraudulent statements relating to family or fortune, caste or religion or age or character of the respondent.

Rejecting the appeal, the bench said that the alleged representation made by the wife was neither related to the nature of marriage ceremony nor was of the nature that could have interfered with the marital life of the parties.

“It is significant to observe that as per the appellant himself, they were known to each other and had a love marriage, any representation by the respondent about her having sufficient means for setting up of a business, cannot be said to be of the nature as would amount to fraud or concealment of material fact entitling the appellant to a decree of nullity,” the court said.

It added that the Family Court had also found that no documentary or corroborative evidence was led by the husband to substantiate his assertions.

The court said that the husband was unable to prove his averments on the basis of which he was seeking a decree of nullity.

“We find that neither on facts nor under law the appellant has been able to show that the alleged representation by the respondent could be termed as misrepresentation or fraud of the kind defined under Section 12(1)(c) of the HMA. We accordingly, dismiss the Appeal as being without merit,” the court said.

Advocate Vijay Datt Gahtori appeared for the appellant. None appeared for respondent.