Case – Babui Panmato Kuer v Ram Agya Singh, 1968 Case Analysis
Fact – This is an appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act). The appellant is the plaintiff whose petition for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge of Saran. The petition was founded on the ground of fraud within the meaning of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act.
Just before her marriage had been solemnized she had overheard her father telling her mother that he had fixed up a husband for the petitioner who was in an affluent financial condition and was between 25 and 30 years of age. Having heard these particulars, the petitioner raised no objection to the proposed marriage; and it might be said that she impliedly consented to the marriage through silence.
On the 15th April, 1960 the father took her to the respondent’s house where for the first time in the night she discovered that besides being a man of very ordinary means the respondent was aged even more than her father, that is to say over 60 years She wept and wept, took no food for two days and insisted upon being sent back to her father’s house, whereupon the respondent beat her.
In March 1961, the petitioner filed the present petition for dissolution of marriage with the respondent on the ground of fraud in the matter of procurement of her consent whereby her marriage was solemnized.
Issue – Whether this amounts fraud under section 12(1)(c) of HMA?
Contentions and Judgement:
“Fraud” has been defined in section 17 of the Contract Act. According to that definition, “Fraud” means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his
connivance or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:
- The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
- The active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
- Any other act fitted to deceive.”
- The petitioner’s father must have seen the respondent and he must have known that he was nowhere between 25 and 30 years of age at that time. Therefore, the petitioner’s father had made suggestions to the petitioner’s agent, viz. her mother, of certain facts which the petitioner’s father himself could not possibly have believed to be true.
- The petitioner’s father had resorted to the active concealment of a fact which was within his knowledge or belief. If the petitioner’s father had conveyed true facts to her mother and yet the petitioner, who overheard the talks, did not protest, then the position could have been materially different. But, here the relevant facts were suppressed from her knowledge, although it was the duty of her father to convey the true position to her.
- I am, therefore, of the opinion that there was a fraudulent misrepresentation to the petitioner, intended to procure her consent to the marriage.
- It must be held that the petitioner, being under a heavy veil, at the time of the marriage, could have no opportunity to have a look at her husband so as to make her in a position to withdraw her consent even at that stage.
- In my view, the case of the petitioner falls quite clearly within the ambit of clause (c) of section 12(1) of the Act. I, therefore, set aside the decision of the court below and annul the petitioner’s marriage with the respondent under clause (c) of section 12(1) of the Act. The petition succeeds and this appeal is allowed.
