Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Case law - Section 12 - Babui Panmato Kuer vs. Ram Agya Singh
Bench: Justice G.N. Prasad.
Facts:
- Babui Panmato Kuer, herein the Appellant, a little older than 18 years at the time of her marriage, overheard her father talking to her mother about fixing a husband for the Appellant, who is about 25-30 years old and financially well-off.
- This conversation about her marriage was not objected by her and she impliedly consented to the marriage.
- The Appellant could not see the bridegroom, herein the Respondent at the time of marriage and even for a few days after that. The Respondent filed a complaint against the Appellant’s father under Section 498, Indian Penal Code after which she was brought to the house of the Respondent and she saw him for the first time.
- When she discovered that the Respondent was over 60 years old, she insisted on being sent back to her father’s place. The Respondent thrashed her but she somehow managed to run away, firstly to her father’s house and then to her uncle’s house.
- Thereupon, the Respondent filed another complaint against the Appellant’s father and her uncle under Section 498, IPC. He succeeded in finding her and confining her into a room.
- She escaped again and thereafter filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of fraud committed to procure her consent to marry.
Issue:
Whether the Appellant was entitled for dissolution of marriage solemnized with the Respondent?
Contentions of the Appellant:
- Fraudulent misrepresentation made to the Appellant by the father by employing the Appellant’s mother for the purpose.
- The marriage was not consummated between the parties.
- The Respondent caused her physical pain and also did not provide her with food for two days.
Background:
The Respondent did not contest the petition before the Additional District Judge but he filed written statement denying the allegations contained in the petition. The Petitioner (Appellant herein) accordingly pledged her oath in support of her allegations which were accepted by the Court. However, the Petition for dissolution of her marriage was dismissed and an appealwas preferred before the High Court, under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) which pronounced its judgment given below.
Judgment:
The Court while reiterating illustration (b) to Section 17 of the Contract Act, which defines fraud, observed that the father of the Appellant had resorted to active concealment of a fact, which was within his knowledge or belief, intending to indirectly procure the Appellant’s consent to marry the Respondent. The father had a duty towards her of making true disclosure of facts particularly with regard to the age of the proposed bridegroom.
In support of the ex-parte evidence filed the Appellant, the Court set aside the decision of the ADJ holding that a “spouse or any party to the marriage shall be entitled for dissolution of marriage if the consent is acquired fraudulently.”
Hence, the case of the Appellant falls within the ambit of Clause (c) of Section 12(1) of the Act due to which the marriage stands annulled.
