Non-Disclosure of Prior Live-In Relationship as Fraud

Source: Jharkhand High Court 

Why in News? 

The Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary in the case of Priyanka Sahi v. Sidharth Rao (2026) held that the non-disclosure of a prior live-in relationship before marriage constitutes fraud as to a material fact under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, rendering the marriage voidable and liable to be annulled by a decree of nullity. 

What was the Background of Priyanka Sahi v. Sidharth Rao (2026) Case? 

• The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 02 December 2015 as per Hindu rites and customs. 
• The wife (appellant) and husband (respondent) filed cross-appeals arising out of a common judgment passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa. 
• The wife sought enhancement of permanent alimony on the ground of miscalculation of the amount awarded. 
• The husband challenged the ex-parte decree of annulment, alleging lack of proper service of summons and asserting that the marriage had suffered an irretrievable breakdown. 
• After the wife went to her matrimonial home, she was introduced to a woman as the 'girlfriend' of the husband. 
• The wife discovered that her husband had been in a live-in relationship with that woman prior to the marriage, a fact allegedly concealed from her and her family. 
• The wife contended that she was subjected to physical and mental torture following a demand for Rs. 15,00,000/- in additional dowry. 
• She alleged the husband was addicted to drinking and that she was eventually ousted from her Sasural in March 2016, deprived of her Stridhan (woman's property). 
• The wife argued her consent was obtained by fraud/concealment of fact, as the husband was represented as a man of good character. 
• The husband contended that the allegations of infidelity and drug addiction amounted to cruelty against him. 
• The husband further argued that the multifarious litigations and irreconcilable differences indicated the marriage was a "dead wood" situation. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court clarified that 'fraud' in matrimonial law has a distinct standing and cannot be interpreted in the same manner as fraud under the Contract Act, 1872. 
• The Court stated: "The fraud contemplated by Section 12 of the said Act is not required to be interpreted in tune with the definition engrafted under Section 17 of the Contract Act. Both the Hindu Marriage Act and Contract Act are not pari materia...the definition of fraud given under the Contract Act cannot be brought with lock, stock and barrel to a marriage which is sacrament." 
• The Bench held that the suppression of a prior live-in relationship is a qualifying fraud for annulment under Section 12(1)(c). 
• The Court observed: "Since the status of prior live-in-relationship of the respondent/husband with other lady has not been disclosed to the appellant wife, therefore, it may be inferred herein that consent of the petitioner/appellant/wife and her guardian was obtained by practicing fraud by the respondent/husband as required U/S 12(1)(C) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955." 
• On the issue of permanent alimony under Section 25, the Court noted that the husband is employed as Manager (Instrumentation) at Hindustan Zinc Ltd, earning approximately ₹1,56,000 per month, and also considered his assets. 
• The Court recorded that the wife holds an LL.B. degree and claimed to be presently unemployed. 
• The Court found it appropriate to enhance the permanent alimony to ₹50,00,000 as a one-time settlement. 

What is Section 12 of HMA? 

About:  

• Section 12 of HMA envisages provision for voidable marriage as: 
  • A voidable marriage is a valid marriage until it is avoided and it can only be done if one of the parties to the marriage files a petition for the same.  
  • However, in case, any of the parties do not file a petition for the annulment of the marriage, it will remain valid. 

Grounds:  

• Clause (ii) of Section 5 of HMA if not complied with makes a marriage voidable. 
  • As per Section 5 - (ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party —  
    • (a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind;  
    • (b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or  
    • (c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity. 
• Section12 further mentions following grounds on which marriage can be declare as voidable: 
  • If the marriage has not been consummated because of impotency of the respondent. 
  • If either of the parties to the marriage is incapable of giving consent or has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity. 
  • If the consent of the petitioner or the consent of the guardian of the petitioner has been obtained by force or fraud. 
  • If the respondent was pregnant before the marriage by some other person than the petitioner. 

Effect:

• The parties have the status of a husband and a wife and their children are considered to be legitimate by virtue of Section 16 of HMA. All the other rights and obligations of the spouses remain intact.