Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has dissolved a marriage after finding that a bank manager had furnished a wrong date of birth on a matrimonial website, inducing his wife to marry him under a mistaken belief about his age and horoscope compatibility.
A division bench of Justices K Lakshman and BR Madhusudhan Rao allowed an appeal by the wife, a government employee, and set aside an order of the Family Court at Ranga Reddy that had dismissed her petition seeking annulment.
The couple had entered into an arranged marriage on August 24, 2018, after coming into contact through an online matrimonial portal. The husband had listed his date of birth as February 9, 1981. On the basis of that information, the wife’s family conducted a horoscope match and proceeded with the wedding.
It was only during the process of marriage registration that the wife discovered her husband’s actual date of birth was February 9, 1974 – seven years earlier than what he had declared. The wife, who belonged to an orthodox family and attached importance to horoscope compatibility, alleged that the misrepresentation had resulted in a flawed horoscope match and amounted to fraud.
She had approached the Family Court under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which allows annulment of a marriage where consent is obtained through fraud relating to a material fact concerning a spouse. The Family Court had rejected her plea, prompting the appeal.
Husband, wife say they don’t want to continue marriage
During the hearing, both parties informed the court they were no longer willing to continue the marriage and filed affidavits to that effect.
The bench noted there was no possibility of reunion. “Both the appellant and the respondent are not interested to lead the marital life. Therefore, there is no possibility of reunion,” it observed.
The wife expressed willingness to withdraw pending criminal and domestic violence cases subject to a settlement and return of her gold ornaments. The husband said he would consent to the appeal if those proceedings were withdrawn. The court, however, held that disputes over ornaments and monetary claims involved contested questions of fact that could not be adjudicated in the appeal.
The court also declined to grant permanent alimony, ruling that a separate application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act was necessary for such relief and could not be awarded without one.
Allowing the appeal, the bench granted a decree of divorce and set aside the Family Court order, while granting the wife liberty to pursue remedies on alimony and return of ornaments before the appropriate forum.
| | 
