[Voidable Marriage] 'Material Fact' U/S 12 HMA Includes Any Fact Which If Disclosed Results In Either Parties Not Consenting To Marriage: High Court
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has said that a “material fact” for declaring a marriage voidable under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act would include any fact, which would be relevant to the consent given for a marriage and which if disclosed, would result in either of the parties not consenting to the marriage.
It further said that such a material fact must pertain to the character of the person.
For context, Section 12 Hindu Marriage Act pertains to voidable marriages. Section 12(1)(c) states that any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on two grounds–firstly if the consent of the petitioner is obtained by “force” or by “fraud”; secondly such “force” or “fraud” must be as to the “nature of the ceremony” or as to “any material fact or circumstance” concerning the respondent.
Observing that it was difficult to define “material fact” or “circumstance concerning the respondent”, a division bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla in its August 29 judgment said:
“The meaning of “material fact” or “circumstance concerning the respondent” is difficult to define with certainty. However, it would be reasonable to say that fact or circumstance which is of such a nature that it would be material or relevant to the consent for marriage would be a material fact or circumstance in terms of Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act, 1955. A fact, which if disclosed, would result in either of the parties not consenting to the marriage, would be a material fact. Such a material fact must be in respect of the person or the character of the person.”
Background
The high court passed the order in an appeal moved by the wife under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act challenging the judgment/decree passed by the family court in an original suit filed by the husband/respondent under Section 12 of the Act. The family court had allowed the husband's suit and declared the marriage as void and ineffective.
The couple were married on April 26, 1995 and resided in Faridabad. Two days later, a man visited the parties and informed them that the appellant-wife had already been married to him in 1990 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Since the appellant wife did not want to stay with him, the marriage was dissolved by a written agreement in 1992.
Upon finding the facts to be true, respondent-husband filed a suit for declaration of marriage with appellant as void in 1995 on grounds of fraud by concealing the fact of the wife's first marriage. Appellant-wife pleaded that the allegations were only being raised since the demand of dowry by the respondent was not being met. It was pleaded that the fact of the first marriage had already been disclosed to the husband and his family.
Interim maintenance granted to the appellant wife was stayed by the High Court on the ground account that her divorce with her previous husband was not proven and thus she was not the respondent's wife.
The Family Court held that the material on record did not prove that the respondent husband was made aware of the appellant wife's first marriage prior to their marriage. It was recorded that the marriage between appellant and her first husband was dissolved as per local customs.
The Family Court further held that there was no proof regarding demand of dowry by the respondent or his family. Since the appellant had failed to prove that the fact of her first marriage was disclosed to the respondent prior to their marriage, the family court had declared the marriage as void.
Findings
The Court observed that a specific plea had been taken in the plaint that the appellant had disclosed the fact of her marriage just before the vidaai and had admitted to concealing the same so that marriage with the respondent could be solemnized. It was observed that the appellant and her mother had filed a written statement stating that the respondent and his family had inquired about the appellant and her first marriage and thereafter entered into the relationship with her.
The Court relied on Raghunath Gopal Daftardar vs Vijaya Raghunatha Gopal Daftarda wherein the Bombay High Court held that 'fraud' does not mean the same under the Indian Contract Act and Hindu Marriage Act as Hindu marriage is a sacrament and not a contract.
“A bare perusal of Section 12 of the Act, 1955 reveals that any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity inter alia on the ground, if, (i) the consent of the petitioner is obtained by “force” or by “fraud”; (ii) such “force” or “fraud” must be as to the “nature of the ceremony” or as to “any material fact or circumstance” concerning the respondent.”
The Court held that the fact of appellant's first marriage was never informed to the respondent or his family members and same came to the notice of the respondent only when the appellant's first husband visited them. It was held that the burden to prove that the appellant had informed the respondent regarding her first marriage before the solemnization of their marriage was on her. The High Court held that such burden was not discharged by her.
“In the facts of the present case, it is decipherable that the factum of previous marriage of the appellant...was a material fact concerning the wife relating to her marital status, which was never disclosed to the husband, as such, the consent of the respondent for marriage with the appellant was obtained by fraud and deceit thereby attracting Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act, 1955, therefore, he is entitled to a declaration as granted by the Family Court.”
Lastly, the Court also held that the appellant had failed to show any Court decree dissolving her first marriage and had not shown any proof regarding dissolving by local customs. Therefore, it was held that marriage between the parties was a nullity.
Upholding the family court's order and finding no perversity in it, the high court dismissed the wife's appeal.
Case Title: X v. Y