Lillykutty Mathew vs C.J. Simon on 20 April, 2000
42, Mrs. Pritma Sharma vs. Mohinder S. Bhardwah, AIR 1984 P&H 305 and Mary Kurian vs. T.T. Joseph, AIR 1980 Ker.131 as the same would have been of relevance if the petitioner were to press her original case that the respondent had visited Gujarat in 1985 or 1986 but since that case was not pressed at the hearing, there is no need to discuss the aforesaid authorities. So also it is not necessary to refer to the decisions in AIR 1960 SC 936, AIR 1965 SC 1473 and AIR 1966 SC 1678 cited on behalf of the respondent on the question of interpretation of statutes while dealing with the contention raised in para 10.3 above.
ON MERITS - Issue Nos. 2 & 3
16. As regards the main question whether the petitioner's consent for the marriage in question was obtained by fraud, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the principles enunciated in the judgment of Ecclesiastical Tribunal to the effect that the error concerning the person renders marriage invalid, error of certain qualitative elements can evolve itself into being equivalent to error on person i.e. certain qualitative factors could affect the very subject or object of marriage consent. Regarding fraudulent error canon law recognizes deception as sufficient ground for nullity. It would be fraud or deception if there was a deliberate concealment of the true self to the proposed spouse on some significant point, the revelation of which would seriously and adversely affect the peaceful communion of marital life. The fraud in such a case is motivated by the fear that if the fact in question is made known it will lead to a refusal of marital consent.
It is submitted that the respondent had himself as well as through his broker and his family held out that he was a person who was only 31 years old with a comfortable job in a semi-government organization called AGRO Corporation with a monthly salary of about Rs.1500/and further that the respondent was the youngest son of his parents and, therefore, as per the custom and tradition of the community, the youngest son would inherit the family property and that he would get three acres of land with a house. It is submitted that the respondent also represented that he was a graduate but after the marriage whenever the petitioner inquired of the respondent as to why he did not have a job inspite of having educational qualification, the respondent never had any testimonial to show that he had any degree in graduation. It is submitted that taking an over all view of all the aforesaid deceptions, the respondent had held himself out as a qualitatively different person than what he actually was and that, therefore, the consent given by the petitioner was obtained by the respondent by fraud. It is also submitted that the question of the petitioner's consent is required to be examined in the background of the fact that the petitioner was residing at Ahmedabad since 1982 and that when she went to Kerala, the marriage was arranged through a marriage broker.
17. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was no misrepresentation on any of the relevant factors. The respondent had not disclosed his age as 31 and that merely because the respondent looked younger than his age, the respondent cannot be blamed. As regards the financial aspects, it is stated that the respondent did have a job in AGRO Corporation at the time of marriage, but it was a temporary job and, therefore, for whatever reason the respondent was not continued in employment by the concerned Company, it cannot be said that the petitioner had committed any fraud or deception.