Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Cannot Be Annulled On Mere Allegation Of Non-Disclosure; Petitioner Must Prove 'Active Concealment' With Intent To Deceive: Calcutta High Court

"Under the Special Marriage Act a petitioner does not establish fraud merely by showing that a material fact was not mentioned. He must establish active concealment, a positive act of suppression or, alternatively, silence in circumstances giving rise to a duty to speak." Calcutta High Court, in a judgment delivered on 22 September 2026, held that a decree of nullity under Section 25(iii) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, cannot be granted on a mere assertion of non-disclosure, emphasizing that the burden of proving fraud rests heavily upon the party alleging it.

A division bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Aryak Dutt observed that because Section 25(iii) incorporates the definition of "fraud" from Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a petitioner must demonstrate active concealment or a deliberate act of deception with the intent to induce the other party into the marriage.

The appellant sought a decree of nullity, alleging that his spouse had fraudulently concealed her medical history—specifically Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP) post-splenectomy—prior to their 2016 marriage. The respondent contended that full medical disclosure had been made during marriage negotiations, including the transmission of relevant medical files to the appellant's family, and argued that the nullity suit was a retaliatory measure following marital discord.

The primary questions before the court were whether the respondent’s failure to disclose her medical condition constituted "fraud" as defined under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and whether the appellant had discharged his burden of proving such fraud. The court was also called upon to determine if the trial court correctly applied the law of evidence in evaluating the parties' claims regarding disclosure and if the invocation of Section 340 CrPC (perjury) was justified in the circumstances.

Rigorous Standard For Proving Fraud

The court underscored that fraud requires clear and cogent proof and cannot be inferred lightly. Mere silence does not constitute fraud unless there is a duty to speak, and even then, the law expects a party to exercise "ordinary diligence" to discover the truth. The court held that a nullity suit is not an alternative route to divorce and must be approached with strict judicial scrutiny.

Court Rejects Dilution Of Fraud Definition

The bench distinguished the present case from precedents where the nature of the concealed illness was demonstrably grave and material. Without expert medical testimony, the court refused to accept that the respondent's condition was "marriage-defeating," noting that the appellant failed to produce any doctor or medical expert to substantiate his claims regarding the gravity of the ailment.

Adverse Inference For Withholding Evidence

The court noted that the appellant failed to examine his own father, who was the principal negotiator and the recipient of the medical file. Under Section 114, Illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the court was entitled to draw an adverse inference that the withheld evidence would have been unfavorable to the appellant’s case.

"Where a party withholds the best evidence available to him upon the very fact in issue, the Court is entitled, under Section 114, Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, 1872, to presume that the evidence, if produced, would have been unfavourable to him."

Electronic Evidence Held Inadmissible

The appellant's reliance on WhatsApp messages was dismissed as the electronic evidence failed to meet the mandatory certification requirements under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Furthermore, the court criticized the appellant's handling of these messages, noting that altered file names and a lack of complete chat records undermined their evidentiary weight.

Limited Scope Of Perjury Proceedings

Regarding the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of his perjury application, the court reaffirmed that Section 340 CrPC is an exceptional discretionary power. It is not to be invoked routinely for mere inconsistencies or denials in pleadings. The court observed that the appellant’s attempt to use perjury proceedings was a clear effort to settle personal grievances rather than a pursuit of the interests of justice.

Concluding that the appellant failed to establish any material concealment or intent to deceive, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellant was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000 to the respondent, emphasizing the court's disapproval of the baseless allegations leveled against her.

Date of Decision: 22 September 2026