Priyanka Sahi v. Siddharth Rao @ Rahul
F.A. No. 213 of 2019
Sujit Narayan Prasad and Gautam Kumar Choudhary, JJ
Overview
The Jharkhand High Court, by a Division Bench, decided two related first appeals that arose out of a common judgment passed by the Family Court, Garhwa. The matter related to the annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation of facts, and also the amount of permanent alimony under Section 25. The husband appealed against the ex-parte decree passed against him to annul the marriage, while the wife appealed against the quantum of permanent alimony. The High Court affirmed the annulment of marriage and also partly dealt with the correctness of the amount of alimony.
Facts
The marriage between Priyanka Sahi (wife) and Siddharth Rao @ Rahul (husband) was solemnized on 02 December 2015 as per Hindu customs. Before the marriage, large sums of money to the tune of around ₹26.40 lakhs were transferred by the wife’s father to the bank accounts of the husband and his relations, allegedly at their insistence.
After the marriage, the wife soon realized that the husband was already in a live-in relationship with another woman, which was allegedly hidden from her at the time of the marriage. She was introduced to the said woman at her matrimonial home. The wife also alleged demands for further dowry of ₹15 lakhs, physical and mental torture, and that the marriage was never consummated. She was eventually thrown out of the matrimonial home on 02 March 2016, without her stridhan.
The wife filed a petition under Section 12(1)(c) for the annulment of marriage on the ground that her consent was obtained by fraud, along with a claim for permanent alimony of ₹1 crore. The husband did not appear despite service of summons, and the Family Court passed the order ex parte, annulling the marriage and granting ₹30 lakhs as permanent alimony.
Both parties appealed, the husband against annulment, and the wife against inadequacy of alimony.
Legal Issues
- Whether the ex-parte decree annulling the marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act was legally sustainable.
- Whether concealment of a prior live-in relationship amounts to fraud relating to a material fact.
- Whether the Family Court followed correct principles while determining permanent alimony under Section 25.
- Whether the quantum of ₹30 lakhs as permanent alimony required enhancement.
Decision
The High Court affirmed the annulment of marriage on the ground that the concealment of the existing live-in relationship amounts to fraud in respect of a material fact, invalidating the consent of the wife under Section 12(1)(c). The Court dismissed the husband’s argument of lack of opportunity, observing that adequate opportunities were afforded before proceeding ex-parte.
Regarding the issue of alimony, the Court heavily relied on the decision of Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) and reiterated that permanent alimony should reconcile the earning capacity of the husband with the needs, qualifications, and circumstances of the wife. Although the Court took into account the husband’s high income and earning capacity, it also took into account the wife’s educational qualifications and earning capacity.
The Court held that the marriage was irretrievably broken down and characterized it as a “dead-wood marriage”, observing that there was no point in continuing such a relationship. The decree of nullity was affirmed, and the issue of alimony was considered in the context of the established principles regulating the payment of maintenance and permanent alimony.
