The Jharkhand High Court has held that where the husband conceals his prior live-in relationship with another woman, such concealment constitutes fraud as to a material fact concerning the respondent, thereby vitiating the consent of the wife and her guardian under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Court was hearing cross-appeals arising out of a decree of nullity passed by the Family Court, whereby the marriage between the parties was annulled on the ground that the wife’s consent had been obtained by fraud due to suppression of the husband’s prior live-in relationship.

A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, affirming the decree of annulment, observed that “…since the status of prior live-in relationship of the respondent-husband with another lady had not been disclosed to the appellant-wife, it may be inferred that the consent of the petitioner-wife and her guardian was obtained by practicing fraud, as contemplated under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955”.

Advocate Ashish Gautam appeared for the appellant. Advocate Sunil Singh appeared for the respondent.

Background

The appellant-wife approached the Family Court seeking annulment of the marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging that her consent to the marriage had been obtained by fraud and concealment of material facts.

It was pleaded that after marriage, she came to know that the husband had been in a prior live-in relationship with another woman, which fact had been deliberately suppressed at the time of marriage. It was further alleged that she was introduced to the said woman at the matrimonial home, and that she was pressurised to accept the prior relationship.

The wife also alleged that she was subjected to cruelty, harassment, and unlawful monetary demands, and that she was eventually ousted from the matrimonial home. The Family Court, proceeding ex parte against the husband, decreed annulment of the marriage and granted permanent alimony.

The husband challenged the decree of nullity, while the wife filed a separate appeal seeking enhancement of permanent alimony.

Court’s Observation

The High Court identified the central issue as whether suppression of a prior live-in relationship amounts to fraud as to a material fact to vitiate marital consent under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Bench examined the testimonies of the wife and her mother, both of whom deposed that the prior live-in relationship of the husband was concealed at the time of marriage and was disclosed only after the wife reached her matrimonial home.

The Court noted that both witnesses consistently stated that the husband had been presented as a person of good character and reputation, and that the existence of a prior live-in relationship was never disclosed to the wife or her family before marriage.

The Bench held that concealment of such a relationship goes to the root of marital consent, as it constitutes suppression of a material fact concerning the respondent, within the meaning of Section 12(1)(c).

The Court reiterated that while the Hindu Marriage Act treats marriage as a sacrament, Section 12 carves out statutory grounds where consent obtained by fraud as to material facts permits annulment. It clarified that fraud under Section 12 is not to be equated with fraud under the Contract Act, but is confined to fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent.

Applying this principle, the Court held that suppression of a subsisting or prior live-in relationship is a material circumstance which would have a direct bearing on the decision of a spouse and her guardian to consent to marriage.

The Bench, therefore, affirmed the finding of the Family Court that the wife’s consent had been obtained by fraud due to non-disclosure of the prior live-in relationship.

The Court also rejected the husband’s contention that the decree was vitiated on account of lack of opportunity, noting that he had failed to appear despite service and that the Family Court had proceeded in accordance with law.

Conclusion

While affirming the decree of divorce, the Court modified the order of the Family Court to the extent of enhancing the permanent alimony to Rs. 50,00,000/- as a one-time settlement, and held that all claims arising from the marriage and the present litigation shall stand fully and finally settled.

The Court directed that the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- shall be paid in five equal monthly instalments. The appellant-wife was directed to furnish her bank account details to the respondent-husband for effecting the payments.

With the aforesaid modification and directions, both the appeals were disposed of, and all pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

Cause Title: PS v. SR (Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:1680-DB)

Appearances

Appellant: Ashish Gautam, Advocate; Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate

Respondent: Sunil Singh, Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment


Jharkhand High CourtJustice Sujit Narayan PrasadJustice Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Muhib Makhdoomi

    Assistant Editor

    Muhib Makhdoomi is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum. A law graduate with a background in media and research, he covers the Supreme Court and key High Courts.