XXXXX v. XXXXX, 2026

The parties were introduced through the online matrimonial platform "telugumatrimony.com".

The marriage was solemnised on 24 August 2018.

The wife alleged that the husband represented his date of birth as 09.02.1981 on the matrimonial website.

According to the wife, the husband's actual date of birth was 09.02.1974, making him substantially older than represented.

The wife belonged to an orthodox family that strongly believed in horoscope matching before marriage.

Based on the incorrect date of birth provided by the husband, the families conducted horoscope verification and found the horoscopes compatible.

The wife agreed to the marriage believing that:

• Both parties belonged to the same age group.

• Both were Government servants.

• Their horoscopes were compatible.

The wife discovered the husband's actual date of birth only during marriage registration proceedings in November 2018 before the Sub-Registrar.

She alleged that the husband had played fraud and cheated her by concealing his true age.

Criminal proceedings and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act were pending between the parties.

The wife expressed willingness to withdraw the criminal and domestic violence cases upon receiving a fair settlement amount and return of her gold ornaments.

The husband disputed the wife's claims and asserted that she was already in possession of seven tulas of gold belonging to him.

The Family Court, Rangareddy, dismissed the wife's petition seeking annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud.

Aggrieved by the dismissal, the wife filed the present appeal before the Telangana High Court.

The Telangana High Court allowed the appeal filed by the wife.

The Court observed that the husband had furnished an incorrect date of birth on the matrimonial portal.

The Bench noted that the horoscope matching was conducted on the basis of incorrect particulars supplied by the husband.

The Court found that the parties were no longer interested in continuing the marital relationship.

It observed that there was no possibility of reunion between the husband and wife.

The Court held that disputes relating to settlement amount and gold ornaments involved disputed questions of fact and therefore could not be decided in the present appeal.

The Bench clarified that claims for permanent alimony require a separate application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court rejected the contention that permanent alimony could be granted without such an application.

The order of the Family Court, Rangareddy dated 03.05.2024 was set aside.

The marriage between the parties was dissolved by granting a decree of divorce.

Liberty was granted to the wife to pursue remedies regarding gold ornaments and permanent alimony before the appropriate forum.

The judgment underscores the importance of truthful disclosure on matrimonial platforms, where parties rely heavily on the information furnished by prospective spouses.

The Court implicitly recognized that a false representation regarding age can become a material fact when it influences matrimonial consent.

The decision acknowledges the social reality that in many arranged marriages, factors such as age compatibility and horoscope matching are significant considerations.

The Court treated the dispute pragmatically by focusing on the complete breakdown of the marital relationship and the absence of any possibility of reconciliation.

The ruling reflects a modern judicial approach that seeks to avoid prolonging marriages that have become irretrievably strained in practical terms.

By refusing to decide issues relating to gold ornaments and settlement amount, the Court reaffirmed the principle that disputed factual issues require proper pleadings and evidence.

The judgment provides important clarification regarding Section 25 HMA, emphasizing that permanent alimony is not automatic and requires a separate statutory application.

The decision serves as a caution to users of online matrimonial websites that misrepresentation of material facts may have serious legal consequences.

The judgment strengthens the principles of free consent, good faith, and transparency in matrimonial alliances.

It contributes to the growing jurisprudence concerning disputes arising from digital matchmaking platforms and online matrimonial services.