Babui Panmato kuer V. Ram Agya Singh

BABUI PANMATO KUER Vs. RAM AGYA SINGH

PATNA HIGH COURT

1968

CASE ON CONSENT BY FRAUD UNDER SECTION 12(1)(c) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT

Facts of the case : 

The petitioner filed the case for the annulment of marriage on the grounds of fraud under clause(c) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner who was somewhat above 18 years, before the solemnization of marriage, overhead her father telling her mother that the bridegroom was of the age between 25 to 30. She didn't objected to it and thus her silence amount to her consent for that marriage. She was having the heavy veil before her face due to which she was not able to see the face of the bridegroom. After marriage she found that her husband was around 60 years old. She ran away twice from her matrimonial home but everytime the respondent was able to get her back in his house by filing the petition under section 498 of IPC. Finally the girl-petitioner decided to file the present case. 

JUDGEMENT : 

The Additional District Judge dismissed her petition for dissolution of marriage by stating that there was no direct misrepresentation to the plaintiff as the particulars of the bridegroom were not directly conveyed to plaintiff. Secondly, misrepresentation under section 12(1)(c) of the Act is what to be made during the solemnization of the marriage and not earlier, i.e. when the negotiations for the marriage were going on.

The High Court in her opinion stated that the petitioner being sui juris, her consent to the marriage must have been taken directly. Even if the consent was not taken directly, the mother who was acting as the agent of the petitioner would have been provided by the true facts. The concealment of material facts from the mother amounts to the concealment or misrepresentation to the petitioner as dictating the particulars to mother be intended as dictating to the petitioner itself. 

Moreover the High Court observed that the expression 'at the time of the marriage' is found in clause (a) and (d) and not in clause (c). Therefore it is clear that consent by fraud particular at the time of marriage is not necessary, but only the consent taken by fraud anytime before the solemnization constitutes the wrong under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the act. 

Therefore the honourable High Court set aside the order of Additional District Judge and by the order annul the petitioner's marriage with the respondent. 




Comments

  1. AnonymousAugust 11, 2022 at 12:13 AM

    QUALITY SSN DOB DL HIGH CREDIT SCORES Leads
    Tutorials & E-Books For Ethical Hacking
    Tools For Everything You Need

    I'm On Telegram = @killhacks & I C Q = 752822040

    Stuff for Learning purpose
    (Spamming, Ethical Hacking, LINUX, Programming, etc. )

    Deals in all kind of Tools, Tutorials, E-books, Leads/Fullz/Pros
    Availability 24/7
    FASTEST DELIVERY

    Build Your Own Business with proper guide
    Always glad to serve

    GOOD LUCK
    Here I'm:
    I C Q = 752822040
    Tele-gram = @killhacks

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kailash Wati V. Ajodhia Parkash case summary

Image
KAILASH WATI Vs. AJODHIA PARKASH PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT  19 NOV 1976 CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. Question before the court Whether the hindu marriage act sanctify or recognise (what may be called as) week end marriage as of a right at the unilateral desire of the wife. Facts of the case The appellant smt. Kailash Wati was married to the respondent Ajodhia Parkash in June 1964. Both of them before marriage were posted as village level teachers. Wife at her parental village of Bilga and husband at kot Ise Khan. After marriage the wife was transferred to her husband's station and they lived together in the matrimonial home for 8-9 months. Contention of the parties Husband : The allegation of the husband is that the wife has got herself transferred back to her parental village and ever since has been residing there with her parents against his wish. Therefore he filled an application for the restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. 
Read more

Savitri Pandey V. Prem Chandra Pandey summary

Image
SAVITRI PANDEY Vs. PREM CHANDRA PANDEY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  2002 CASE FOR SECTION 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ON THE GROUNDS OF CRUELTY AND DESERTION Facts of the case :  The appellant - wife approached the court for the dissolution of marriage under section 13 of HMA alleging cruelty and desertion against the husband.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner : Petitioner plead for the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the husband. Respondent  : Respondent - husband argued that no acts of cruelty were performed to the wife and the petitioner is trying to take advantage of her own wrong.  JUDGEMENT :  The trial court passed the decree in favour of the wife. The court observed that although nothing can establish cruelty against husband, desertion by husband provides sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage.    High court opined that there was nothing to prove cruelty as against husband and further there was also nothing to prove the desertion by th
Read more

Swaraj Garg V. K. M. Garg summary

Image
SWARAJ GARG  Vs. K.M. GARG DELHI HIGH COURT MARCH 7, 1978 . CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT Question before the court : Where will be the matrimonial home located after the marriage when both the parties are gainfully employed and there does not exist any agreement either implied or written before the marriage.  Facts of the case : The wife Swaraj - petitioner lived in her village, Sunam, from 1956 and techer at the the school. She was the head mistress at government high school in 1969. She got married to the respondent in 1964. The husband was not having a satisfactory job and earn only 500 p/m in Delhi where he resides. She came to live with her husband for some time and then grt back to her village and continue living there. The Husband therefore filed the petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner  : The petitioner argued that respondent's condition is not satisfactory that he can maint
Read more