Issues:
- Whether the appellant’s wife hid the details of her previous marriage and status as a widow?
- If fraud under Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 is committed when any material fact is omitted?
- Whether the appellant committed fraud to acquire the respondent’s/consent husbands for marriage?
- In accordance with Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act, is the respondent eligible to get a decree declaring their marriage null and void.
Facts of the Case:
On January 23, 1990, the parties’ marriage was formally recognised by the appropriate religious rites and procedures. The parties opted to live apart shortly after getting married since their relationships had grown tense. The respondent claimed that the appellant/wife had committed fraud by concealing the knowledge of her previous marriage to Motilal Vishwakarma, who had passed away before their union. In order to obtain a decree of nullity and a declaration that their marriage was void, the respondent filed a petition under Sections 24 and 25 of the Act. It was argued that the appellant and the respondent were well acquainted before getting married and that the respondent was well aware of the appellant’s status as a widow in light of the aforementioned charges. Hence, the appellant refuted the claim that any material fact had been withheld in order to commit fraud. In accordance with Section 25(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent requested a decree of nullity of marriage before the relevant court.
Judgment:
According to the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the Trial Court determined that the appellant fraudulently gained the respondent’s consent to the marriage by concealing a crucial fact regarding her previous marriage to Motilal Vishwakarma. The appellant was entitled to a nullity decree under Section 25(iii) of the Special Marriage Act since it was made obvious that the suppression and active concealment of her prior marriage and widow status constituted significant misrepresentation. As a result, the Learned Counsel supported the challenged judgement of the Trial Court, and the appeal was rejected.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgment reviewed by Kushala Simha
