Marriage can be annulled for deliberate misrepresentation of marital status

The trial court had annulled the marriage on the woman’s plea, noting that the man concealed his previous marriage by stating ‘never married’ on Shaadi.com

Deliberately misrepresenting marital status on a matrimonial website is a valid ground for annulment of marriage, the Delhi High Court has ruled, observing that such suppression undermines the foundation of marriage and strikes at the core of free and informed consent.

A division bench of justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanthan Shankar delivered the ruling on August 20. (HT Archive)

A division bench of justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanthan Shankar delivered the ruling on August 20, while hearing a man’s appeal against a January 2024 order of a family court that annulled his marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).

Under Section 12(1)(c) of HMA, a husband or wife can seek annulment if consent for marriage was obtained by fraud, whether related to the nature of the ceremony or a material fact or circumstance.

The trial court had annulled the marriage on the woman’s plea, noting that the man concealed his previous marriage by stating “never married” on the matrimonial website Shaadi.com, and also misrepresented his salary.

The woman argued that her consent was fraudulently obtained, stressing that her own profile clearly stated she was looking for a man who had “never been married.” According to her, the man’s profile appeared in her filtered search results only because he had declared the same.

In his appeal, the man contended that the family court had erred by relying on his website profile, rather than his pleadings before the court, where he described himself as “unmarried.” He argued that his wife already knew about his earlier marriage, and added that his Shaadi.com profile had been created by his parents, who were unaware of both his prior marriage and subsequent divorce.

The woman countered that she was misled by the false profile, which induced her to marry him. She supported the trial court’s findings, pointing out that the man had committed fraud not only by concealing his marital history but also by significantly inflating his salary details.

Upholding the annulment, the high court said the concealment of prior marriage and salary information both constituted “material facts” whose suppression rendered the marriage voidable.

“The deliberate misrepresentation of one’s marital history is not a trivial omission but a clear suppression of facts going to the root of a marriage,” the bench said in its ruling released on Friday. “This was a detail the respondent was entitled to know before making the life-altering decision to marry. Its concealment strikes at the very core of free and informed consent.”

The bench agreed with the trial court that the man’s false declarations qualified as fraud.

“Both these factors -- the fact of the appellant’s prior marriage and his stated salary -- are of such decisive importance in a person’s matrimonial decision-making process that their concealment squarely falls within the meaning of a ‘material fact or circumstance’,” the order said.

‘Never married’ vs ‘unmarried’

The court also rejected the man’s attempt to draw a distinction between “never married” in his online profile and “unmarried” in his pleadings. Justice Shankar, who authored the 17-page ruling, wrote that the appellant’s interpretation was “strained and self-serving,” intended to diminish the significance of the false declaration.

“This court cannot countenance such an argument, as it would allow parties to evade accountability for false declarations that directly influence the other party’s decision to marry,” the bench held.

Clarifying further, the court explained that “never married” conveys a permanent status, free from any past marital tie, whereas “unmarried” could ambiguously include those who are divorced or widowed.

“The expression ‘never married’ is substantially different from the term ‘Unmarried’, which could lend itself to the interpretation of either having never been married or merely not being in matrimony at a given point of time,” the judges wrote.