Introduction:

When two eligible adults, as provided under sections 2 and 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, marry in accordance with Hindu (or related ‘Sanatani’ religions) customs, it is said to be a legally recognised marriage.

However, as the case may arise, there is a possibility of “fraud” occurring during the course of the solemnisation of such marriages. When discovered, the aggrieved party may choose to “annul” the marriage.

Meaning of annulment:

Differing from a “divorce” which is a legal dissolution of a marriage, “annulment” declares the marriage to be null ab initio ie the marriage never happened or was legally recognised. A divorce would leave a marriage certificate on record, but that would not be the case in the case of an annulment.

Until a voidable marriage is declared so and nullified by law, it shall be deemed legal for all reasons.

However, in cases as prescribed in section 5 clauses (i) [dealing with bigamy], (iv) [parties are within prohibited degrees of relation] and (v) [parties are sapindas of each other] – the marriage is considered void from the beginning and never recognised.

Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provide provisions which deal with cases where a marriage is null and void (ipso jure) and the marriage is voidable at the option of either party respectively.

Grounds for annulment under the Hindu Marriage Act:

Section 12 provides grounds on which either party to a marriage may pray for an annulment. These include impotency, insanity, fraud, or pregnancy by another man than the petitioner.

The section also elucidates on circumstances where the above grounds would not be applicable.

“Fraud” under the Hindu Marriage Act:

Section 12 (1)(c) describes “fraud” as when “the consent of the petitioner was obtained by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony, or as to the material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent”.

In 2024, in reference to a case of annulment, the Lucknow High Court, in a division bench presided by Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, observed that while it is difficult to definitely prescribe a meaning of  “material fact” or “circumstance concerning the respondent”, the nature of the fact must be such that if disclosed, would lead to revocation of consent and must be in respect to the respondent or their character.

Prior to the amendment of the Act in 1976, the words “material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent” were absent, hence if someone consented to a marriage intently with knowledge of the ceremonies and its nature, they could not claim annulment on grounds of concealment of facts about the respondent or any fraudulent statements made by them.

As held by the Bombay High Court in Raghunath Gopal Daftardar vs Vijaya Raghunatha Gopal Daftarda (1971), “fraud” in the context of a marriage can not be interpreted to be the same as laid down in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as marriage is a “sacrament” and not a “contract” as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.  

In the event of a “fraudulent” marriage, the petitioner seeking the annulment bears the burden of proving the same in the Court, especially on grounds of unsoundness of mind or insanity.

Condonation of fraud:

Condonation of fraud refers to an acknowledgement of the fraud and acceptance of the marriage thereafter. This would include staying in the same premises as husband and wife and maintaining the marital relationship in all aspects.

However, as held in Bikkar Singh v Mohinder Kaur, 1981, a solitary act of sexual intercourse shall not amount to condonation of fraud and the petitioner-husband was granted a decree of nullity by the Punjab-Haryana High Court.

Grounds for rejection of a decree of nullity after discovery of fraud and time limitation:

Section 12(2) contains grounds on which an appeal for annulment might be rejected by the Court.

The annulment appeal shall be declined on grounds of fraud if-

(i) 1 year has passed since the discovery of the fraud and the case is being filed subsequent to this time frame (including Court vacations).

[As observed in Savlaram v Yeshodabai 1962 – the wife was pregnant with another man’s child at the time of marriage which the husband was ignorant of. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal].

(ii) Regardless of the time period of such cohabitation, the petitioner has willingly continued living with the respondent after the discovery of the fraud.

[As observed in Raghunath V Vijaya, 1972 – Bombay High Court dismissed the application as the wife continued living with her husband for 2 months after discovering the fraud].

Conclusion:

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 contains various provisions to redress victims of “fraud” in marriages. However, such annulments are provided after careful and exhaustive examination of evidence, which needs to be provided by the Petitioner.

In case the Court sees merit in the arguments made by the Petitioner, it may approve the annulment. However, there is also provision for cases where individuals discover the fraud yet want to stay in the marriage. Given the marriage is not void ab initio on account of bigamy or prohibited relations, a voidable marriage is considered perfectly legal unless the aggrieved party initiates proceedings for annulment.

A deliberate knowledge of such personal laws is essential for people who are entering into the institution of marriage as it enlightens them about their rights as well as the redressals available under the Hindu personal law.