Sweta Kumari vs Prakash Kumar
2025 Latest Caselaw 7680 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sweta Kumari vs Prakash Kumar on 16 December, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                                2025:JHHC:37805-DB




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                       -----
                               F.A. No.24 of 2021
                                        -----
      Sweta Kumari, daughter of Manikant Pathak, aged about 27 years,
      resident of Hurhuru, Hanuman Nagar, PO: Hazaribag, PS: Sadar, District
      Hazaribag.                                      ... ... Appellant

                                       Versus
      Prakash Kumar, son of Babulal Jee, resident of H.No. -16, PO:
      Kishunpur, PS and District Chatra.               ... ...Respondent
                                        -----
      CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
                                       -------
      For the Appellant(s)     : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
      For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Gupta, Advocate

                                         ------
      CAV ON: 03.12.2025                      PRONOUNCED ON: 16.12.2025
      Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section

19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order/judgment dated

27.02.2021 [decree signed on 06.03.2021] passed by the learned Principal

Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag in Original Suit No. 105 of 2017,

whereby and whereunder, the said Suit filed by the appellant-wife under

the provisions of Sections 25(i) & (iii) of Special Marriage Act, 1954 has

been dismissed.

2. It requires to refer herein that vide order dated 12.10.2022 passed by this

Court matter was referred for mediation. But the said mediation was failed

which would be evident from order dated 19.12.2022, for ready reference

the aforesaid order is being quoted herein:

08 / 19.12.2022 Mediation has failed, as per the report of learned Mediator, JHALSA bearing letter no. 3263A dated 02.12.2022.

2. Admit.

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

3. Call for the lower court records in connection with Original Suit No. 105/2017 from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag.

4. Place the case under the heading 'For Hearing' on receipt of lower court records, as per its age.

3. Thereafter again vide order dated 09.10.2025 matter was referred to the

Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) for amicable

settlement of the issue, but the attempt of amicable settlement failed

which would be evident from order dated 26.11.2025, for ready reference

same is being quoted as under:

Order No.10/Dated 26th November, 2025

1. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. However, Mr. Shekhar Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, has put his appearance after obtaining the N.O.C. from the earlier counsel. Both of them submitted that the mediation has failed, and this being the first day of hearing after the failure of mediation, they have not gone through the brief properly.

2. As such, they have prayed for an adjournment.

3. As jointly prayed for, let this matter be listed on 03rd December, 2025.

4. Thereafter instant appeal was reserved on 03.12.2025 for adjudication on

merit.

Factual matrix

5. The brief facts of the case are referred herein as under:

It has been stated that the respondent obtained a marriage

certificate by cheating and committing fraud on 10.4.2017 under

sections 11 and 13 of Special Marriage Act. The petitioner has never

resided with respondent as husband and wife. The signature of

petitioner was obtained on marriage register certificate under coercion

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

and threat. The petitioner has no knowledge about the witnesses who

have put their signature on the certificate.

The respondent/husband was residing near the house of

petitioner at Deep Urmila Niwas, Hanuman Nagar since 2007 and he

was preparing for competitive examinations and during the said

period he used to come to the house of the petitioner (appellant

herein). By this way both, petitioner and respondent started knowing

each other and closeness developed. The petitioner has never seen the

respondent as life partner but during the course of study some books

were exchanged between them.

In the meantime, in the year 2017 the respondent said that he

has qualified in JPSC exam and for appointment some witnesses are

required with residential proof and on good faith her signature was

obtained on some forms and the same was converted into marriage

application and the same has been filed before the special marriage

officer.

After submission of the form the respondent started torturing

petitioner and forced her to appear before the marriage officer and

threatened if she failed to appear then her father and brother will be

implicated in a false case and on this fear the petitioner put her

signature and appeared before the marriage officer, Hazaribag on

10.04.2017 and from the registration office the respondent and his

witnesses fled away.

Thereafter the petitioner returned to her home. Due to fear, she

could not narrate the story to her parents but after few days the

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

petitioner disclosed the matter to family members. The petitioner was

telephonically threatened by the respondent to leave her house and

stay with respondent. She never wants to live with the respondent as

wife-husband as such she filed the suit for a decree of divorce praying

to annul the marriage by a decree of nullity.

6. Notice was issued to the respondent who appeared and filed his written

statement. Thereafter, altogether six issues have been framed by the

learned Family Judge which are as follows:

(i) "Whether the Suit, as framed, is maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether the parties are legally married husband and wife?

(iii) Whether the marriage between the parties was solemnized without free consent of the petitioner and/or her consent to the marriage was obtained by the respondent by force or fraud so as to fulfill the requirements of section 25 Clause (iii) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954?

(iv) Whether marriage between the parties was not consummated owing to the willful refusal of the respondent so as to fulfill the requirement of section 25 Clause (i) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954?

(v) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of annulment of her marriage as prayed for?

(vi) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any other relief/reliefs?

7. The evidences have been laid on behalf of both the parties. Thereafter,

the judgment dated 27.02.2021 has been passed by the learned Principal

Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag dismissing the Suit brought by the

petitioner/appellant, namely, Sweta Kumari, under sections 25(i) & (iii) of

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and, thereafter, the decree was signed on

06.03.2021.

8. The appellant-wife being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment dated 27.02.2021 [decree signed on 06.03.2021] passed in

Original Suit No. 105 of 2017 has filed present First Appeal under Section

19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner/appellant:

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner appellant has raised the following

points:

(i) It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the learned court

below has erred in recording the finding that the marriage was solemnized

by the appellant out of her sweet will ignoring the pleading and evidence

of the appellant wherein she has categorically stated about the fraud and

coercion applied by the respondent.

(ii) The learned court below has failed to appreciate that none of the witnesses

have deposed that they had acquaintance with the petitioner/appellant and

she had shown her willingness for marriage before them.

(iii) The learned court below has failed to appreciate that the application for

annulment of the marriage has been filed by the appellant on 30.05.2017

i.e. within two months of marriage. The learned court below has also

failed to appreciate that the marriage was never consummated.

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

(iv) The learned court below has failed to appreciate that in Para-4 of her

deposition she has deposed that she had not spent even a day with the

respondent as wife and husband.

(v) The learned court below has failed to appreciate that even the respondent

in his deposition has not deposed that the marriage was consummated

rather he has admitted that the applicant/petitioner never resided with him.

(vi) The petitioner/applicant had categorically stated about the fraud and

coercion of the respondent in getting the marriage registered. The

petitioner/applicant does not want to continue conjugal life with the

respondent as he has obtained the signature of petitioner/applicant by

playing fraud upon the petitioner/applicant and subsequently by coercion

compelled her to appear before Marriage Registrar for getting the

Marriage registered and as such this is a fit case for declaring the marriage

null and void ab initio.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent/respondent:

7. Per contra the learned counsel for respondent husband has raised the

following grounds:

(i) The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the present

suit is not maintainable in facts or in law in its present form and, hence,

it is liable to be dismissed and the petitioner is not entitled for the relief

as sought for.

(ii) It is further contended that the respondent never blackmailed the

petitioner/appellant nor played any fraud with the petitioner. It is wrong

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

to say that in good faith the respondent obtained her signature. The suit

is barred by law of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. The petitioner

put her signature on the marriage documents on her free will and

appeared before Sub-Registrar, Hazaribagh voluntarily for registration

of marriage.

(iii) The marriage of the parties was solemnized ever more than twelve days

after the mandatory period of 30 days provided in the Act. The

respondent is ready to live with the petitioner and wants to lead his

conjugal life with the petitioner and also filed a case before Family

Court, Ranchi for restitution of conjugal life vide MTS No.304/2017

dated. 11.05.2017. Hence, this suit liable to be dismissed.

8. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that no

interference is required in the order impugned.

Analysis:

9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the findings recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned

judgment.

10. The case has been heard at length. The admitted fact herein is that the

suit for annulment of marriage has been filed on the ground of cheating and

fraud, i.e., by filing an application under Sections 25(i) & (iii) of Special

Marriage Act, 1954 and, accordingly, issues have been framed by the learned

Family Court wherein primarily issue nos. II and III pertains to cheating and

fraud.

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

11. The evidence has been laid on behalf of both the parties. Altogether

five witnesses have been examined on behalf of the petitioner/appellant. Out of

five witnesses, the most relevant witness is PW-3 who is the appellant herself.

Her evidence is referred herein under:

(i) PW-3 Sweta Kumari is the petitioner herself (appellant herein) has

stated that she has filed this case against the respondent Prakash Kumar. She

further deposed that on 10.04.2017Prakash Kumar obtained her signature by

committing fraud and forgery and used the said document for registration of

marriage. This information was given to her on her mobile. This witness

deposed that marriage document has been obtained by fraud. It has been

further disclosed that the respondent was staying near and in front of the

house of this witness and was pursuing his study so they had acquaintance.

As per this witness in the year 2017 she was informed by the respondent that

he has cleared J.P.S.C. Examination and for appointment he needs a

residential certificate and he required a witness and for the said reason he

had taken photocopy of Adhar Card and Pan Card of this witness and took

the signature of this witness and converted the same for registration of

marriage in the marriage registration office.

This witness has never given any proposal of marriage to the

respondent. This witness never stayed with the respondent as wife. She was

informed by the respondent that she has solemnized the marriage with the

respondent. She also stated that she never went to stay with the respondent.

As per this witness the respondent has committed fraud in obtaining the

marriage certificate from the office of the marriage registration which is

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

fully illegal. She has stated that same may be declared illegal and be given a

decree for the same.

This witness has been cross-examined at length by the learned counsel

for the respondent. This witness has identified the signature on the

application of petition filed and also stated that on affidavit she has put her

signature. This witness has further stated that she is post graduate and her all

family members are educated. She admitted that at the time of cheating

committed by the respondent she was aged about 24 years.

She disclosed that the respondent has taken photocopy of Adhar Card

and Pan Card by giving wrong information and thereafter she was compelled

to appear before the marriage registration office. She was not aware for

which reason she has to appear in the office of marriage registration. This

witness also admitted that it is correct that after completing all formality she

put her signature on the marriage register. However, again she stated that she

was forced to sign the register. This witness has denied the suggestion that

information was posted on notice board and after thirty days again she went

to the office of marriage registration and put her Signature. She admitted that

witness used to exchange books with respondent while he was staying there

and was continuing study. They were known to each other but they have no

any friendship. This witness denied the suggestion that since the respondent

has cleared J.P.S.C. Examination thereafter she expressed her desire for

marriage. This witness denied that the family members of this witness have

full knowledge about relation of the petitioner and respondent. This witness

denied the suggestion that when finally, the respondent could not succeed in

J.P.S.C. Examination then this witness does not want to continue relation.

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

This witness also denied the suggestion that she has filed this suit on desire

of her family members.

(ii) PW-4, namely, Hira Devi and PW-5,namely, Manikant Pathak both

are the parents of the petitioner/appellant. They have deposed that

on10.4.2017 by committing fraud the respondent has obtained the marriage

certificate from the marriage registrar and the same may be cancelled. Both

have stated that petitioner has never stayed with the respondent as wife and

husband and both have no knowledge about the marriage of the petitioner

and the respondent.

It has further been stated that the respondent used to come in their

house since 2007 in connection with study. It has further been disclosed that

they came to know that the respondent has qualified JPSC examination in

the year 2017 and thereafter in the year 2017 by committing fraud the

respondent obtained the signature on the blank paper of the petitioner and

thereafter threatened that he has a document pertains to the marriage and

also pressurized the petitioner to stay with him as his wife. The document

has been obtained by the respondent by committing fraud.

In their cross-examination they have stated that they came to know

about the marriage after 10-15 days of issuance of certificate. Both witnesses

have admitted that they also came to know about the case filed by the

respondent in Ranchi.

(iii) PW-1 and PW-2 are brothers of the petitioner. They have also given

the identical evidence. They have stated that by committing fraud the

respondent has obtained the marriage certificate without the knowledge

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

regarding the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent though they

have admitted that the respondent has acquaintance with the petitioner from

the year 2007.

12. The respondent has examined altogether three witnesses i.e. RW-1

Vikash Kumar, RW-2 Sunil Kumar Suman and RW-3 Prakash Kumar, the

respondent himself.

13. RW-3, Prakash Kumar, the respondent has deposed that the he has not

cheated the petitioner to obtain her signature. This witness disclosed that the

petitioner has given her consent for the marriage. She disclosed that she is in

love with this witness and wanted to marry with him. She also stated that she

cannot live without company of this witness.

On the advice of advocate this witness has solemnized the marriage

with the petitioner under Special Marriage Act. At the time of marriage both

the parties were major. This witness disclosed that he and the petitioner has

voluntarily appeared before the Marriage Registrar along with necessary

documents. The documents were legally scrutinized by the Special Marriage

Officer and after completing the entire necessary formalities and after

satisfaction the marriage was solemnized under the Special Marriage Act.

This witness along with the petitioner again appeared before the

Special Marriage Officer after thirty days of registration on 10.4.2017 on

their free will and put their signatures on the register before the Special

Marriage Officer and after completing the necessary formalities the Special

Marriage Officer issued the marriage certificate. This witness identified the

signature of Sweta Kumari, the petitioner. The signature on the marriage

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

certificate of Sweta Kumari has been marked as Ext.A. and he has also

identified his signature on the marriage certificate. His signature has been

marked as Ext.A/1.

This witness has been cross-examined at length where this witness

disclosed that the affidavit was prepared by his advocate on the instruction

of this witness. This witness has acquaintance with the petitioner since 2007.

This witness was residing in Hanuman Nagar, Hazaribag in the year 2007

and the petitioner was residing around 50 meters away from the house of this

witness.

This witness disclosed to the petitioner that he has appeared for

J.P.S.C. Examination and also qualified the preliminary test. This witness

further disclosed that the witnesses of the marriage are Sunil Kumar Suman,

Vikas Kumar and Vivek Bharati. It is also stated by this witness that after

completion of marriage the petitioner/appellant went to Ranchi and

presently, she is residing in Hazaribagh. This witness also stated that he

wants to stay with the petitioner.

14. The other two witnesses examined by the respondent are R.W.-1

Vikash Kumar and R.W.-2 Sunil Kumar Suman, both are the witnesses of

marriage certificate.

15. R.W.1 has stated that the petitioner was aware and agreed for the

marriage with the respondent and, accordingly, she appeared voluntarily

before the Special Marriage Officer for registration of the marriage. This

witness is the witness of marriage certificate. He has stated that on

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

10.04.2017 he was also present before the Special Marriage Officer along

with his Aadhar Card and he also put his signature.

16. R.W.2 has also stated that he is the witness of marriage and he was present

on 10.04.2017 when the petitioner appeared before the Special Marriage

Officer, Hazaribagh and she was aware that she is marrying with the

respondent. She has never been misguided by the respondent. This witness

was also present along with his Aadhar Card. This witness is also aware that

the certificate was issued on 10.04.2017 in his presence.

17. The learned Family Court, after appreciating the evidence on record,

dismissed the suit by the impugned judgement and decree on the ground

that there was no element of fraud in obtaining consent of appellant in the

marriage.

18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the marriage

certificate has been issued by the Special Marriage Officer without the

knowledge of the petitioner/appellant. It has been contended that the

respondent cheated the petitioner and by misguiding her brought in the

office of marriage registration and a signature was obtained on the register

without her knowledge so the marriage certificate is illegal and the marriage

should be declared null and void.

19. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the marriage

certificate has been issued by the Special Marriage Officer under the format

Fourth Schedule and, accordingly, the marriage certificate was issued vide

Certificate No 20/2017. It has been contended that the petitioner appellant,

with her full knowledge appeared before the Special Marriage Officer and

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

presented her documents, thereafter the Special Marriage Officer, after

satisfying himself and verifying the documents properly, issued the

marriage certificate accordance to Law and the marriage was registered. It

has further been contended that the witnesses examined before the court on

behalf of the respondent who are the witnesses as signatory of the marriage

certificate have also stated that the petitioner/appellant was aware that

shewas marrying with the respondent and by knowing fully well appeared

before the Special Marriage Officer and accordingly, the marriage

certificate was issued so there is no illegality in the marriage certificate.

Hence, the suit filed by the petitioner should be dismissed.

20. On the basis of the factual aspect as well as on the basis of the learned

counsel for the parties the seminal issue involved in this appeal is that

whether the registration of marriage is obtained by fraud and conditions

and limitations as contemplated under proviso to Section 25 (iii) of the

special Marriage Act is fulfilled.

21. In order to appreciate the aforesaid issue, it would be apt to refer the

relevant provisions of Special Marriage Act 1954 (herein referred as Act

1954) which reads as under:

"4. Conditions relating to solemnization of special marriages.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force relating to the solemnization of marriages, a marriage between any two persons may be solemnized under this Act, if at the time of the marriage the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:--

(a) neither party has a spouse living;

(b) neither party--

(i) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

(ii) 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

(iii) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity;

(c) the male has completed the age of twenty-one years and the female the age of eighteen years; 5

(d) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship:

Provided that where a custom governing at least one of the parties permits of a marriage between them, such marriage may be solemnized, notwithstanding that they are within the degrees of prohibited relationship; and;

(e) where the marriage is solemnized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, both parties are citizens of India domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends.

Explanation.-- In this section, "custom", in relation to a person belonging to any tribe, community, group or family, means any rule which the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf as applicable to members of that tribe, community, group or family:

Provided that no such notification shall be issued in relation to the members of any tribe, community, group or family, unless the State Government is satisfied--

(i) that such rule has been continuously and uniformly observed for a long time among those members;

(ii) that such rule is certain and not unreasonable or opposed to public policy; and

(iii) that such rule, if applicable only to a family, has not been discontinued by the family.

5. Notice of intended marriage.-- When a marriage is intended to be solemnized under this Act, the parties to the marriage shall give notice thereof in writing in the form specified in the Second Schedule to the Marriage Officer of the district in which at least one of the parties to the marriage has resided for a period of not less than thirty days immediately preceding the date on which such notice is given.

7. Objection to marriage.--(1) Any person may, before the expiration of thirty days from the date on which any such notice has been published under sub-section (2) of section 6, object to the

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

marriage on the ground that it would contravene one or more of the conditions specified in section 4.

(2) After the expiration of thirty days from the date on which notice of an intended marriage has been published under sub-section (2) of section 6, the marriage may be solemnized, unless it has been previously objected to under sub-section (1).

(3) The nature of the objection shall be recorded in writing by the Marriage Officer in the Marriage Notice Book, be read over and explained if necessary, to the person making the objection and shall be signed by him or on his behalf.

13. Certificate of marriage.--(1) When the marriage has been solemnized, the Marriage Officer shall enter a certificate thereof in the form specified in the Fourth Schedule in a book to be kept by him for that purpose and to be called the Marriage Certificate Book and such certificate shall be signed by the parties to the marriage and the three witnesses.

(2) On a certificate being entered in the Marriage Certificate Book by the Marriage Officer, the Certificate shall be deemed to be conclusive evidence of the fact that a marriage under this Act has been solemnized and that all formalities respecting the signatures of witnesses have been complied with."

22. Thus, Section 4 of the Act 1954 lays down conditions relating to

solemnization of special marriages. The Section says "any two persons" of

any caste, crede, religion and faith, domicile or nationality could solemnize

marriages with certain territorial or other limitations. marriage is to be

performed between two persons in India under certain conditions as

enumerated in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 4 of the Act 1954.

23. Section 5 of the Act 1954 lays down the procedure of an intended marriage.

This Section envisages that when parties to the marriage intends to

solemnize the marriage under this Act, they shall give a notice in the

prescribed form to the marriage officer of the district in which at least one

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

of the parties of the marriage are resided for a period of not less than 30

days immediately preceding the date on which notice is given. The

provisions are clear and exhaustive in nature while making it clear that the

desirous parties to give their intention to marry.

24. Section 7 of the said Act envisages that, any person before expiry of 30

days, can object to the marriage on the ground that it would contravene one

or more of the conditions specified in Section 4 and not otherwise. There is

no special form of marriage solemnization under the Act. Only certain

formalities have to be undergone as per the Act. Neither any ritual nor any

particular ceremony is to be performed, Section 12(2) of the Act specifically

lays down that the marriage may be solemnized in any form which the party

may choose to adopt. This clause has a proviso, but that is only a

compulsory formality which the parties will perform by uttering certain

words and solemnization of marriage becomes complete as soon as the

formalities under the Act is complete, the marriage is complete in all

aspects.

25. Section 13 of the Act 1954 envisages that when a marriage has been

solemnized, the marriage officer shall enter a certificate thereof in the form

specified and he shall enter in the book kept by him for the said purpose and

to be called the marriage certificate book. On the certificate being entered in

the marriage certificate book by the marriage officer, the certificate shall be

deemed to be conclusive evidence of the fact that the marriage under this

Act has been solemnized and all the formalities respecting the signature of

the witnesses have been complied with. Therefore, the certificate of

marriage issued by the marriage officer is conclusive proof

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

of the fact of marriage, due consent of the parties to the marriage. In such

cases, it is not open to say that the marriage was illegal or invalid because,

certain formalities required by the Act were not followed. The legislature

intended that, if this had not been provided, then the persons other than the

parties to the marriage certificate could also prove the defect in the

procedure followed in a particular marriage with the result that the

offsprings of such union would have become illegitimate children and

regarding succession to male spouse, different course could have followed

i.e., the children born from such alliance could not succeed. To avoid the

complication, the law makers have attached conclusiveness to the certificate

of marriage.

26. At this juncture it is considered view of this Court that reference of Section

25 of the Act 1954 requires to be referred herein which reads as under:

"25. Voidable marriages.-- Any marriage solemnized under this Act shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity if,--

(i) the marriage has not been consummated owing to the wilful refusal of the respondent to consummate the marriage; or

(ii) the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner; or

(iii) the consent of either party to the marriage was obtained by coercion or fraud, as defined in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872):

Provided that, in the case specified in clause (ii), the court shall not grant a decree unless it is satisfied,--

(a) that the petitioner was at the time of the marriage ignorant of the facts alleged;

(b) that proceedings were instituted within a year from the date of the marriage; and

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

(c) that marital intercourse with the consent of the petitioner has not taken place since the discovery by the petitioner of the existence of the grounds for a decree:

Provided further that in the case specified in clause (iii), the court shall not grant a decree if,--

(a) proceedings have not been instituted within one year after the coercion had ceased or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered; or

(b) the petitioner has with his or her free consent lived with the other party to the marriage as husband and wife after the coercion had ceased or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered."

27. Section 25(iii) of the Act 1954 envisages that the Court can grant a decree

on the ground that any marriage solemnized under Act 1954 can be voidable

if the consent of either party to the marriage is obtained by coercion or

fraud. Sub-clause (iii) of Section 25 of the Act 1954 clearly envisages that

fraud and coercion are the other grounds on which a decree of annulment of

marriage has been provided. The Section has described the scope of

definition by making it clear that "fraud and coercion" will have the same

meaning as defined in the Indian Contract Act. "Fraud" is defined under

Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

28. The meaning of 'fraud' as envisaged by Section 25(iii) of the Act, has its

absolute moorings in the Indian Contract Act, 1872.Section 17 of Act 1872

"Fraud" means as under:

"17. 'Fraud' defined.-- 'Fraud' means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto of his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:--

(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

(2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;

(3) a promise made without any intention of performing it;

(4) any other act fitted to deceive;

(5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.

Explanation.-- Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, is, in itself, equivalent to speech."

29. Thus, for an annulment of marriage under Section 25(iii) of the Act 1954, it

is important to prove that the consent for the marriage was obtained by

coercion or fraud as defined in Indian Contract Act.

30. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court is now re-

adverting to the factual aspect of the instant case.

31. Herein, the appellant/wife is under Section 25(iii) of the Act of 1954

praying for a decree of nullity of the marriage solemnized on 10.04.2017

under the Act of 1954 vide Marriage Certificate No.20 dated 10.04.2017 on

the ground of it having been solemnized in a fraudulent manner.

32. From the settled position of law as discussed and referred hereinabove, it is

evident that the jurisdiction to declare a marriage to be nullity under

Section 25(iii) of the Act of 1954 would be available when the consent of

either party to the marriage was obtained by coercion or fraud. The

appellant has examined altogether five oral witnesses in support of her

contention and also filed the documents i.e. marriage certificate.

33. All the five witnesses examined by the petitioner on affidavit. All have

stated in their affidavit that the marriage certificate procured by the

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

respondent on 10.04.2017 is obtained by fraud. But it is evident from record

that none of the said witnesses except petitioner/ appellant was the witness

who was present before the Special Marriage Officer. The Appellant P.W.3

deposed in her affidavit that the respondent has obtained her signature on

certain blank papers and produced them before the Special Marriage Officer

for registration of marriage. It is stated by PW3 that she was called before

the Special Marriage Officer by the respondent and she was asked to put her

signature before the Special Marriage Officer by committing fraud. The

petitioner/appellant in her affidavit has categorically stated that she

appeared before the Special Marriage Officer where she put her signature.

The other four witnesses examined by the petitioner/appellant were not

present before the Special Marriage Officer at the time of appearance of the

petitioner/appellant showing they are not the witnesses of the said event,

whereas the respondent examined himself as R.W-3 who has stated before

the court that the petitioner/appellant with her own sweet will appeared

before the Special Marriage Officer and put her signature on the documents

required for the special marriage and accordingly, the marriage was

registered by the Special Marriage Officer.

34. The respondent has also examined the other two witnesses who were the

witnesses of the marriage. They have stated that they were present before

the Special Marriage Officer when the petitioner/appellant and the

respondent were present and the petitioner/appellant was aware and willing

for the marriage and presented the documents required for the purpose of

marriage and in their presence the Special Marriage Officer, after

performing the legal formalities issued the marriage certificate. Both the

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

witnesses (R.W-1 and RW-2) have identified their signature on the said

certificate.

35. From the above facts and evidences brought on record it is evident that the

marriage certificate has been issued by the Marriage Registrar after going

through the processes for registration of the marriage and the

petitioner/appellant was aware that she is appearing before the Special

Marriage Officer for registration of the marriage and she presented the

documents as required and put her signature. The marriage certificate has

validly been issued.

36. Further, the Appellant, a well-educated lady having adequate knowledge

and she was aspiring for the JPSC exam, therefore, it cannot be expected

from her that she has not understood the meaning of the words and the

purpose for fulfilling the legal formalities. A lady with such exposures and

prudence is not expected to have not understood the meanings of the

'Intended Marriage Form' and signing on those papers without knowing its

contents. Further the witnesses who had put their signature on the marriage

certificate have specifically stated that appellant put her signature on the

marriage certificate in their presence. Further both the witnesses had no

reason to depose against the appellant.

37. Thus, there is ample evidence to show that appellant married respondent

with her free will and consent and she was not put under any fraud or

coercion. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid facts no case could be

made out by the appellant/wife for an annulment of the marriage under

Section 25(iii) of the Act of 1954.

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

38. Further, the certificate of marriage issued by the marriage officer under

Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The presumption of validity

of the document is there under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act

and there is no material on record for rebuttal of such presumption. It should

be mentioned that the appellant has not alleged of any special relation

between the respondent and the marriage officer.

39. Section 25(i) says "the marriage has not been consummated owing to the

wilful refusal of the respondent to consummate the marriage". The learned

Family Court has specifically observed that no evidence has been led by the

petitioner/appellant that the marriage was not consummated and Family

court find no evidence available on record to enable the Court to have

arrived at that conclusion. The learned Family Court has further observed

that there is no evidence available on record led by the appellant wife that

the marriage had not been consummated owing to any willful refusal by the

Respondent-husband to consummate the marriage. Further it has been found

by the learned Family Court that there is no specific averment in the

affidavit that the marriage was not consummated. On the other hand, it is

the respondents' case that he is still ready to take back the appellant in his

home for the continuation of their conjugal life. So, the ground under

Section 25(i) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 was not in favour of the

Appellant.

40. Herein since a certificate of marriage has been issued by a competent

authority and therefore by virtue of Section 13 of the Act 1954 it is

conclusive proof of the marriage and further presumption is there that the

certificate was issued after following all the legal formalities.

2025:JHHC:37805-DB

41. Having considered the evidence adduced by the parties in the appeal this

Court has no hesitation to hold that the appellant's claim that she signed on

all the documents of registration of marriage without knowing their contents

or significance, because of fraud by the appellant, are all baseless, absurd

and without any logical basis as well.

42. The circumstances enumerated above do not make this Court believe the

story of appellant that consent having been obtained under fraud having

practiced on her. The grounds urged are not sufficient for annulment of the

marriage and the appellant has failed to prove that there was any fraud in

practice before the Sub-registrar making her to sign or subscribe her

signature by force.

43. Thus, it is considered view of this Court that the appellant failed to prove

her claims under Section 25 (i) or under Section 25

(iii) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. In the result, finding of the learned

Family Court requires no interference.

44. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed.

45.Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of.

                                                    (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)


     I Agree                                          (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)


(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

Date:
KNR/AFR
Uploaded On:17.12.2025