Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest JudgementHindu Marriage Act, 1955

X v. Y, 2025

The court emphasized that online matrimonial platforms allow users to specify “Divorced”, but the appellant intentionally selected “Never Married”.

Delhi High Court·23 August 2025
X v. Y, 2025
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Delhi High Court

Date of Decision

23 August 2025

Judges

Justice Anil Kshetarpal ⦁ Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • The husband created a matrimonial profile on Shaadi.com, stating he was “Never Married”.

  • The wife responded to his profile and agreed to marry him, believing it was his first marriage.

  • After the marriage, it was revealed that the husband had a previous marriage which he did not disclose.

  • He also misrepresented his income.

  • Based on these facts, the wife filed for annulment of the marriage under Section 12(1)(c) HMA.

  • The Family Court annulled the marriage.

  • The husband appealed the decision in the Delhi High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether misrepresenting prior marital status constitutes fraud under Section 12(1)(c) of HMA?

  2. Is the difference between “Never Married” and “Unmarried” legally significant in consent for marriage?

  3. Can a marriage be annulled for concealment on an online profile?

Held

  • The term “Never Married” is a clear and categorical representation that the person has never been married before.

  • Concealing a prior marriage strikes at the root of free and informed consent.

  • Such fraud justifies annulment under Section 12(1)(c).

  • The expressions “Never Married” and “Unmarried” are not interchangeable and differ in implication.

Analysis

  • The court emphasized that online matrimonial platforms allow users to specify “Divorced”, but the appellant intentionally selected “Never Married”.

  • This is not a casual omission, but a deliberate misrepresentation.

  • The integrity of matrimonial consent relies heavily on truthful disclosure.

  • The court interpreted “material fact” broadly to include marital history.

  • Thus, concealment = fraud, and fraud invalidates consent, making the marriage voidable.