The Karnataka High Court has recently declared couple’s marriage as null and void holding that the woman had misrepresented and concealed her real age at the time of marriage.

A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vijaykumar Patil allowed the petition filed by the husband questioning the order of the family court rejecting his petition filed under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act. The family court had held that petitioner (husband) failed to prove the grounds to declare his marriage with the respondent (wife) as null and void.

In this case, the appellant and respondent, who are Indian Christians , their marriage was solemnised in 2014 at Bhadravathi. The marriage proposal was brought by the girls’ mother and brother and they said  that respondent’s (wife’s) age is 36 years at the time of marriage. Based on such a representation the man and his family members had consented for the marriage in good faith.

It is alleged by the husband that when he questioned the respondent and her family members, it was revealed that she has been suffering from incurable disease for a long time. It was also revealed that the respondents age was 41 years at the time of marriage, however, they have represented that her age is 36 years, when they brought the proposal of marriage. The wife is 4 years older than the appellant husband and the consent of the appellant for the marriage was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and also there is concealment of material facts. Therefore the marriage remained unconsummated.

Therefore, the husband’s counsel argued that the act of the respondent -wife and her family members amounts to fraud and misrepresentation as they have obtained the consent for marriage by concealing the facts related to her age and health issues of the respondent, and the same can be the ground to declare the marriage of the appellant and respondent as null and void.

In lieu of the above circumstances and evidences, the court said “The respondent wife  in her cross examination has clearly admitted that she was aged 41 years at the time of marriage proposal, however she has disclosed her age as 36 years. When there is clear admission of the respondent wife that she and her family members have informed the appellant that her age is 36 years at the time of marriage proposal; however it was 41 years, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the admission of respondent no. 1- husband.”

It added “In our view, the Family Court erred in appreciating the pleading and evidence on record, which has resulted in incorrect finding.”

Thus, the Court  allowed the appeal of the husband and declared the marriage null and void.

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5183 OF 2016