Non-Disclosure Of Prior Live-In Relationship Amounts To 'Fraud' U/S 12(1)(c) Of Hindu Marriage Act: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the non-disclosure of a prior live-in relationship before marriage constitutes fraud as to a material fact under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court emphasised that while Hindu marriage is a sacrament and not a contract, the concealment of such a relationship to obtain consent renders the marriage voidable and liable to be annulled by a decree of nullity.A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary was hearing cross-appeals arising out of a common judgment passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa.While the appellant-wife sought enhancement of permanent alimony on the ground of miscalculation, the respondent-husband challenged the ex-parte decree of annulment, alleging a lack of proper service of summons and asserting that the marriage had suffered an irretrievable breakdown.BackgroundThe marriage between the parties was solemnised on 02 December 2015 as per Hindu rites. The wife alleged that after she went to her matrimonial home, she was introduced to a woman as the 'girlfriend' of the respondent-husband. She later discovered that her husband had been in a live-in relationship with that woman prior to the marriage, a fact allegedly concealed from her and her family.The wife further contended that she was subjected to physical and mental torture following a demand for Rs. 15,00,000/- in additional dowry. She alleged the husband was addicted to drinking and that she was eventually ousted from her Sasural in March 2016, deprived of her Stridhan. She argued her consent was obtained by fraud/concealment of fact, as the husband was represented as a man of good character.The husband, on the other hand, contended that the allegations of infidelity and drug addiction amounted to cruelty against him. He further argued that the multifarious litigations and irreconcilable differences indicated the marriage was a "dead wood" situation.Referring to Section 12(1)(c), the High Court clarified that 'fraud' in matrimonial law has a distinct standing:"The fraud contemplated by Section 12 of the said Act is not required to be interpreted in tune with the definition engrafted under Section 17 of the Contract Act. Both the Hindu Marriage Act and Contract Act are not pari materia...the definition of fraud given under the Contract Act cannot be brought with lock, stock and barrel to a marriage which is sacrament".However, the Bench held that the suppression of a prior live-in relationship is a qualifying fraud for annulment:"Since the status of prior live-in-relationship of the respondent/husband with other lady has not been disclosed to the appellant wife, therefore, it may be inferred herein that consent of the petitioner/appellant/wife and her guardian was obtained by practicing fraud by the respondent/husband as required U/S 12(1)(C) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955."Affirming the annulment, the Court observed that the parties had lived separately since 2016, rendering the relation a "dead wood marriage", lifeless and without emotional value. The Bench also noted that no purpose will be served in sailing the dead wood.On the issue of Section 25 (permanent alimony), the Court noted that the respondent-husband is employed as Manager (Instrumentation) at Hindustan Zinc Ltd, earning approximately ₹1,56,000 per month, and also considered his assets. While recording that the appellant-wife holds an LL.B. degree and claimed to be presently unemployed, the Court found it appropriate to enhance the permanent alimony to ₹50,00,000 as a one-time settlement.Case Title: Priyanka Sahi v. Sidharth Rao.Case Number: FA No. 213 of 2019.Appearance: Mr. Ashish Gautam and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocates, appeared for the Appellant. Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate, appeared for the Respondent.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Non-Disclosure Of Prior Live-In Relationship Amounts To 'Fraud' U/S 12(1)(c) Of Hindu Marriage Act: Jharkhand High Court

Rushil Batra

Tags