The Jharkhand High Court ruled that hiding a prior live-in relationship before marriage is fraud under Hindu marriage law and upheld annulment. The Court also said such concealment strikes at the root of trust and informed consent, making the marriage voidable and liable to be annulled.
The Jharkhand High Court has clearly held that hiding a prior live-in relationship before marriage amounts to fraud on a material fact under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court made it clear that while a Hindu marriage is traditionally treated as a sacrament and not a commercial contract, consent obtained by concealment of important personal facts cannot be protected by law. Such concealment strikes at the root of trust and informed consent, making the marriage voidable and liable to be annulled.
The Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary explained the legal position by observing that:
“The fraud contemplated by Section 12 of the said Act is not required to be interpreted in tune with the definition engrafted under Section 17 of the Contract Act. Both the Hindu Marriage Act and Contract Act are not pari materia…the definition of fraud given under the Contract Act cannot be brought with lock, stock and barrel to a marriage which is sacrament”.
This clarification is important because matrimonial fraud is often wrongly compared with commercial fraud, even though marriage involves personal autonomy, dignity, and lifelong consequences for both spouses.
The Family Court proceeded ex-parte against the husband after repeated non-appearance and annulled the marriage, directing payment of ₹30 lakh as permanent alimony. Both sides challenged different parts of this order before the High Court.
While examining the challenge to annulment, the High Court explained what amounts to a perverse finding and relied on settled law. The Court reiterated that a perverse finding is one which is “not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself.”
The Court then analysed the legal meaning of fraud under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It made it clear that Hindu marriage is not a commercial contract but a sacrament, and therefore fraud in matrimonial law cannot be equated mechanically with fraud under the Contract Act. The judgment records:
“The fraud contemplated by Section 12 of the said Act is not required to be interpreted in tune with the definition engrafted under Section 17 of the Contract Act.”
At the same time, the Court clarified that concealment of a material fact that goes to the root of marital consent can amount to fraud. Based on the unchallenged evidence of the wife and her mother, the Court concluded that the husband’s prior live-in relationship was deliberately hidden before marriage. On this, the Court held:
“It may be inferred herein that consent of the petitioner/appellant-wife and her guardian was obtained by practicing fraud by the respondent-husband as required U/S 12(1)(C) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”
The Court refused to accept the husband’s argument that he was denied opportunity, holding that a party who chooses not to participate cannot later complain of injustice.
On the issue of cruelty, the Court went into a long discussion of Supreme Court precedents to show that cruelty has no fixed definition and must be judged in context. It quoted established law that:
“Cruelty is the conduct which adversely affects the spouse… such cruelty can be either ‘mental’ or ‘physical’, intentional or unintentional.”
The Court also reminded that trivial marital wear and tear cannot be treated as cruelty, and each case depends on social background, temperament, and circumstances.
Importantly, the Court recognised that prolonged separation can make a marriage meaningless. Referring to Supreme Court rulings, it described the relationship as a “dead wood marriage” and observed that forcing parties to remain legally tied serves no purpose. The judgment records that when a marriage becomes lifeless and beyond repair, courts should not prolong suffering.
The second major issue was permanent alimony. The wife challenged the ₹30 lakh amount as inadequate, while the husband challenged the very grant of alimony. The High Court analysed Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha. The Court clearly stated the purpose of maintenance:
“The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse.”
The Court further reproduced the Supreme Court’s guidance that:
“There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance.”
It listed factors such as status of parties, reasonable needs, independent income, liabilities, duration of marriage, and standard of living. The judgment also quoted that maintenance:
“Should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury.”
Addressing the common argument that an educated or earning wife should not get maintenance, the Court quoted the Supreme Court verbatim:
“Merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.”
At the same time, it also reaffirmed that courts must balance the husband’s real income, liabilities, and capacity to pay, and not proceed on assumptions.
By applying these principles, the High Court examined whether the Family Court had correctly assessed income, status, and circumstances before fixing ₹30 lakh as permanent alimony. The Court emphasised that alimony must be just, proportionate, and reasoned, not arbitrary.
In conclusion, the Jharkhand High Court upheld the annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud due to concealment of a prior live-in relationship, reaffirmed that ex-parte proceedings are valid when a party deliberately avoids court, and applied strict Supreme Court guidelines to examine permanent alimony.
Explanatory Table – Laws & Sections Involved
| Law & Section | Purpose (In Simple Terms) | How Applied in This Case |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 5 | Lays down basic conditions for a valid Hindu marriage | Court examined whether valid consent existed at the time of marriage |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 12(1)(c) | Allows annulment if consent is obtained by fraud or concealment of material facts | Marriage annulled as prior live-in relationship was concealed |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 25 | Governs permanent alimony and maintenance | ₹30 lakh permanent alimony examined for fairness and proportionality |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 27 | Deals with disposal of property and stridhan | Court noted claims relating to money and articles given at marriage |
| Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 19(1) | Provides right to appeal against Family Court orders | Both husband and wife filed cross appeals |
| IPC Sections 498A, 406, 420, 323, 34 | Criminal provisions relating to cruelty, breach of trust, cheating, hurt | Referred as background litigation raised by husband |
| Supreme Court Guidelines – Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) | Lays down uniform principles for maintenance and alimony | Used to assess whether ₹30 lakh alimony was just and non-punitive |
| Supreme Court on Cruelty – Samar Ghosh, Shobha Rani, V. Bhagat | Defines mental and matrimonial cruelty | Cited to explain legal standards, though annulment was based on fraud |
| Supreme Court on Dead Marriage – Durga Prasanna Tripathy | Recognises irretrievable breakdown / dead wood marriage | Court noted marriage had become lifeless and beyond repair |
Case Details
- Case Title: Priyanka Sahi vs. Siddarth Rao @ Rahul (With Cross Appeal: Siddarth Rao @ Rah)
- Case Numbers: F.A. No. 213 of 2019 With F.A. No. 23 of 2018
- Court: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
- Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:1680-DB
- Date of Judgment: 21 January 2026
- Counsels:
- For Wife (Appellant): Mr. Ashish Gaut and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate
- For Husband (Respondent): Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate
Key Takeaways
- Concealment before marriage can legally destroy consent, but annulment must be based on strict proof, not assumptions or sympathy.
- Ex-parte orders are valid when a party avoids court proceedings; deliberate non-participation weakens later claims of injustice.
- Permanent alimony is meant for support, not punishment, and must never become a lifetime financial penalty on the husband.
- Courts must apply Supreme Court guidelines to balance income, liabilities, duration of marriage, and real earning capacity, not inflated claims.
- Dead marriages should not be legally prolonged; forcing continuation only increases litigation, misuse of laws, and injustice against men.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.