Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Delhi High Court Rejects Annulment Petition on Grounds of Fraud and Limitation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, August 18, 2023 - In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has rejected an annulment petition seeking to dissolve a marriage on grounds of fraud. The judgement was delivered by a bench comprising of Hon'ble Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon'ble Justice Neena Bansal Krishna on August 18, 2023.

The case involved an appellant seeking to annul a marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing allegations of force and fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or material facts concerning the respondent. The alleged instances included the appellant's demand for dowry and his failure to complete VISA formalities after the marriage, coupled with claims of misrepresentation about relocation to New Zealand.

In a meticulously reasoned judgement, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna highlighted the importance of distinguishing between "fraud" as defined in the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the specific requirements for fraud under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court emphasized that not every misrepresentation or concealment constitutes "fraud" in the context of marriage, stressing that it must relate to material facts or circumstances concerning the respondent.

Furthermore, the judgement analyzed the issue of limitation in the context of the annulment petition. The Court found that the alleged fraud was known to the respondent since the very initiation of the marriage, and the petition was filed after a period of 25 months, exceeding the one-year limitation prescribed by Section 12(2)(a) of the Act.

The bench's observation in the judgement highlighted the Court's commitment to judiciously apply the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, including Order VII Rule 11, to expedite the disposal of petitions and discard frivolous litigation at the outset. The Court underscored the need to prevent unnecessary delays and protracted legal battles, ultimately contributing to a more effective and just judicial system.

Quoting the judgement, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna stated, "Scrupulous adherence to provisions of CPC... can curtail litigation like the present one, which aside from clogging the litigation that could have been nipped in the initial stage itself, also keeps the parties embroiled in litigation with a false hope of some relief, which is never to come their way."

The Court's decision to reject the annulment petition was founded on the grounds that the allegations failed to establish a cause of action under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act and were barred by limitation. The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed, and the appeal was consequently allowed with pending applications being disposed of.

This judgement reinforces the need for due diligence in assessing the grounds for annulment and highlights the court's commitment to timely and just adjudication.

Date of Decision: August 18, 2023

ASSEM AGGARWAL vs ASHI KUMAR

Latest Legal News