Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The appellant claimed that though respondent had assured that she would be joining the profession of Beautician with the appellant, but she subsequently absconded. The appellant came to know in August, 2020 that the respondent did not has the requisite qualification and had fraudulently represented herself to be in the Beautician line. She had given wrong particulars of information with an intent to mislead and had obtained his consent on false information. The consent is claimed to have been induced under undue influence by taking advantage of wrong information. The consent to the marriage was claimed to be fraudulent and hence, the marriage was claimed to be a nullity. The appellant thus, sought annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of HMA.

15. Similar view was expressed by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harbhajan Singh vs. Smt. Briji Balab, AIR 1964 Punjab 339, wherein it was further observed that in case of a marriage under Hindu law fraud is not used in a general way and the marriage cannot be dissolved by on every misrepresentation or concealment. If the term "fraud" was to be interpreted in accordance with Indian Contract Act, then it would become impossible to maintain the sanctity of marriage. By way of illustration, it was stated that if a respondent is a person of Bad Character before the solemnization of marriage, it cannot be termed as a fraud. The legislature did not intent that the past conduct of the respondent except what is mentioned in Section 12 of the HMA, should become a ground for dissolution of marriage.

16. Similarly, Bombay High Court in Raghunath vs. Vijaya, AIR 1972 Bom. 132 observed that term „fraud‟ used in Section 12(1)(c) of the HMA does not speak of fraud in any general way, nor does it mean every concealment or misrepresentation may be considered as fraudulent. If the consent is given to the solemnization of marriage, the same cannot be avoided on the ground of fraud.

17. In Sujatha vs. Hariharan, 1995 (II) M.L.J 327 DB of Madras High Court observed that to constitute a "fraud" under Section 12(1)(c) of the HMA there must be an abuse of confidential position, some intentional imposition or some deliberate concealment of material facts which are the fundamental basis of the marriage contract.