The Jharkhand High Court held that concealing a prior live-in relationship before marriage amounts to fraud under the Hindu Marriage Act. While upholding annulment, the Court enhanced permanent alimony from Rs 30 lakh to Rs 50 lakh to secure the wife’s future.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
RANCHI: The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that concealment of a prior live-in relationship before marriage amounts to fraud, justifying annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and enhanced permanent alimony from ₹30 lakh to ₹50 lakh to reasonably secure the wife’s future.
Background of the Case
The parties married on 2 December 2015. Soon after moving to the matrimonial home, the wife discovered that her husband had been in a prior live-in relationship, a fact allegedly concealed at the time of marriage.
The wife further alleged:
- Demand of ₹15 lakh as additional dowry
- Physical and mental cruelty
- Forced ouster from the matrimonial home on 2 March 2016
She approached the Family Court under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud along with permanent alimony.
The Family Court proceeded ex parte due to the husband’s non-appearance, annulled the marriage, and awarded ₹30 lakh as permanent alimony.
Both parties appealed. Wife sought enhancement of alimony, Husband challenged the ex parte decree and annulment
Issues Before the High Court
- Whether the ex parte decree was legally valid
- Whether concealment of a prior live-in relationship constitutes fraud under Section 12(1)(c) HMA
- Whether the quantum of permanent alimony requires enhancement
Court’s Observations
Ex-Parte Proceedings Were Valid
Rejecting the husband’s argument of improper service, the Court noted:
“Despite summons and notices issued against the respondent… he neither appeared nor filed a written statement. The Court was left with no option but to proceed ex-parte.”
Concealment of Live-In Relationship Amounts to Fraud
The Bench relied on consistent testimonies of the wife and her mother that the husband was portrayed as a man of good character, while his prior live-in relationship was deliberately hidden.
“Since the status of prior live-in relationship of the respondent/husband was not disclosed, the consent of the appellant-wife and her guardian was obtained by practicing fraud as contemplated under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”
The Court held that such concealment vitiates free consent, striking at the foundation of marriage.
‘Dead Wood Marriage’ Doctrine Invoked
Observing that the parties had been living separately since 2016, the Court termed the marriage a “dead wood marriage”, noting:
“Forcing parties to remain in such a relationship only prolongs their suffering.”
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), the High Court reassessed the financial capacity of the husband and the future needs of the wife.
Factors Considered:
- Husband’s employment as Manager (Instrumentation), Hindustan Zinc Ltd.
- Monthly income of approximately ₹1.56 lakh
- Wife’s unemployment despite holding an LL.B. degree
- Wife’s dependency on her father
- Standard of living during marriage
“The appellant-wife is entitled to maintenance reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future.”
Final Direction:
- Permanent alimony enhanced to ₹50,00,000
- Payable as one-time settlement
- To be paid in five equal monthly installments from February 2026 to June 2026
The Jharkhand High Court upheld the decree of nullity of marriage granted by the Family Court, holding that the husband’s concealment of his prior live-in relationship amounted to fraud under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
While affirming the annulment, the Court modified the order on permanent alimony and enhanced the amount from ₹30 lakh to ₹50 lakh, directing the husband to pay the enhanced sum as a one-time settlement to reasonably secure the wife’s future.
Case Title:
Priyanka Sahi Versus Siddarth Rao
F.A. No. 213 of 2019
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports On Divorce
