Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'HMA') has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Nagda, district Ujjain in Case No.09/2017 whereby the application filed by the appellant/husband under Section 12(1)(c) of HMA has been NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27569 FA-52-2018 dismissed.

8. Heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. It is befitting to go through the provisions contained under Section 12(1)(c) of HMA for resolving the controversy involved in the instant appeal . The relevant portion which provides for voidable marriage reads as under:-

12. From perusal of the sub clause (c) of Section 12(1) of HMA it is apparent that when consent of the appellant is obtained by force or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance concerning respondent, the marriage shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity. From perusal of the impugned judgment, this Court finds that issues no.1 to 3 framed by the Court below are relevant and material for resolving the controversy involved in the case, as the case of the appellant is that he is highly educated engineer employed in private company in Hyderabad and wished to marry highly educated lady and after solemnization of marriage, he found that his wife respondent was not having Diploma in Computer Engineering, Hardware and Networking. In this regard he has reiterated the allegations leveled against father, brother and brother-in-law of the respondent/wife, in his statement before the court . He has deposed that the aforesaid persons when came with an offer for marriage of the respondent with him, they exaggerating their societal prestige, misrepresented about the fact that the respondent is having Diploma in Computer Engineering, Hardware and Networking which was found false later on after the marriage. On 15.12.2011 when he searched the internet on the site of Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education as per the result declared on 08.02.2011, the respondent was declared failed. Thus, his consent for marriage was obtained on misrepresentation. He further submits that he also discovered that photograph of some other lady was pasted on the admit card issued in favour of the respondent. Thus, she has also committed fraud with the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27569 FA-52-2018 Board also. It has come on record that after completion of enquiry with regard to pasting of photograph of some other lady in the admit card of the respondent, result has been declared which in itself reveals that complaint was found false. Thus, the aforesaid allegation has no bearing on the controversy involved in the case.

15. The Bombay High Court in the case of Raghunath Gopal Daftardar Vs. Vijay Raghunath Gopal Daftardar reported in 1971 SCC Online Bom 52 : (1971) 73 Bom LR8 40: AIR 1972 Bom 132 has held that the word "fraud" used in Section 12(1)(c) of HMA does not speak of fraud in any general way, nor does it mean every misrepresentation or concealment, which may be fraudulent. Relevant paras 13 to 19 of the judgment may be aptly reproduced, which runs as under: