The Telangana High Court annulled a marriage after finding that the husband had misrepresented his date of birth on an online matrimonial platform. The Court held that the incorrect age details misled the wife regarding horoscope compatibility, leading her to consent to marriage under a mistaken belief.
The Telangana High Court dissolved the marriage between a bank manager and a government employee after concluding that the husband had provided an incorrect date of birth on an online matrimonial platform. The Bench held that this misstatement led the wife to enter the marriage under a mistaken understanding of the husband’s age and horoscope compatibility.
A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao allowed an appeal filed by the wife and overturned an order of the Family Court at Rangareddy, which had earlier dismissed her petition for annulment.
Background of the Case
The marriage was arranged and solemnised on August 24, 2018. The parties first met through an online matrimonial portal. According to the wife, the husband had shown his date of birth as February 9, 1981. She stated that, on the basis of this information, her family proceeded with horoscope matching and the marriage was fixed.
The wife, who came from an orthodox background and attached importance to horoscope compatibility, said she believed that both parties belonged to the same age group and were similarly placed as government employees.
Although the marriage was consummated and the couple lived together briefly, the wife later discovered during the marriage registration process that the husband’s actual date of birth was February 9, 1974. She claimed this meant he was substantially older than what was represented prior to marriage, and she alleged that the incorrect disclosure amounted to fraud and cheating.
She then approached the Family Court seeking relief under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which covers situations where consent is obtained through fraud regarding a material fact or circumstance relating to a spouse. However, the Family Court rejected her plea.
Observations of the High Court
Before the High Court, the wife was represented by Mrs. Pushpinder Kaur, appearing for advocate G. Durga Charan, while advocate G. Ramakrishna appeared for advocate Pradeep Kumar Lahot for the husband.
After examining the statutory provision, the Bench observed that the wife’s primary grievance was that the husband furnished a wrong date of birth, which resulted in an allegedly incorrect horoscope match. The Court also noted that criminal proceedings initiated by the wife and a domestic violence case were pending between the parties. During the appeal hearing, both sides informed the Court that they were no longer interested in continuing the marital relationship. Affidavits were submitted by both parties recording their positions.
The wife stated that she was willing to withdraw the pending criminal and domestic violence proceedings, provided there was a fair settlement and the return of her gold ornaments. The husband, in turn, said he would consent to the appeal if those proceedings were withdrawn.
The Bench further noted that issues concerning gold ornaments, settlement amounts, and other monetary claims involved disputed questions of fact and therefore could not be properly decided within the limited scope of appeal proceedings. Significantly, the Court recorded that there was no scope for reunion, observing:
“Both the appellant and the respondent are not interested to lead the marital life. Therefore, there is no possibility of reunion,”
The Bench also clarified that permanent alimony could not be granted in the appeal since the wife had not filed a separate application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Rejecting the submission that such relief could be granted without a specific application, the Court held:
“a separate application is required to be made for seeking permanent alimony.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and granted a decree of divorce, setting aside the Family Court’s order. At the same time, it granted liberty to the wife to pursue appropriate remedies regarding permanent alimony and the return of gold ornaments before the competent forum, including through the pending domestic violence proceedings.
Case Title: XXXXX Vs XXXXX
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE