Case Analysis: Asha Qureshi v. Afaq Qureshi, (2002) | Nullity of Marriage under Special Marriage Act

The appellant, a widow from a previous marriage, did not disclose this fact to the respondent at the time of their marriage. This suppression of a material fact constitutes fraud.

Case Title: Asha Qureshi v. Afaq Qureshi

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Citation: AIR 2002 MP 263

Judge: Justice V.K. Agarwal

Judgment on: 17th May, 2002

Background

The parties in dispute i.e., the aggrieved wife and the husband had preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the Special Marriage Act (Act) to the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh against the Impugned order dated 14.10.1996 passed by the Learned Trial Court.

The Impugned Order dated 14.10.1996 pertains to the judgment and decree of nullity passed by the lower court declaring the marriage between the parties null and void.

Facts of the case

Asha Qureshi and Afaq Qureshi decided to get married as per the legal provisions of the Special Marriage Act. Their marriage was solemnized on the 23rd of January 1990 at Jabalpur in terms of the legal provisions incorporated under the Act.

The parties were living in a cordial relationship for almost a year but with the change of sudden circumstances, unknown to both the parties, their married relationship became estranged with each passing day and they started living separately.

The Respondent (Afaq Qureshi, husband herein the case) moved to the Ld. Trial court with his petition under Sections 24 and 25 of the Act seeking a decree of nullity of their marriage be passed by the court declaring the marriage completely null and void in the eyes of the law. The reason behind approaching the court of law with such a petition, the Respondent has stated that it was only after his marriage with Asha Qureshi, that he came to the knowledge that it was the second marriage of his wife Asha (herein called Appellant) with him. The Appellant was earlier married to someone else and this substantial fact was deliberately suppressed from the knowledge of the Respondent's husband. The Respondent stated that his wife Appellant was already married to an individual named Motilal Vishwakarma who had expired before the marriage of the concerned parties to this case.

The Respondent further submitted before the Hon’ble Court that one of the prime beliefs of the husband before getting married to Asha Qureshi was that she ought to be a virgin and of course that it was her first marriage. However, by suppressing this material fact from the Respondent, the Appellant is claimed to have committed fraud upon the Respondent and that his consent to marry the Appellant was obtained nothing less than by exercising fraud upon him.

In response to the allegations of the Respondent, the Appellant/wife refuted all the allegations stating that the Respondent has complete knowledge about the Appellant being a widow at the time of marriage between the parties. Hence, his claim that fraud was exercised upon him by suppressing the fact of her prior marriage does not hold any water.

Issue Involved

• Whether the appellant/wife had suppressed the fact that she was a widow at the time of marriage with the respondent and married the respondent/husband by practising fraud.

Trial Court Decision

The Trial Court determined that by suppressing the material facts about the wife's earlier marriage, she was guilty of obtaining the consent of the respondent/husband for marriage by exercising fraud. Hence, passed the decree of nullity of marriage between the parties, as prayed by the husband before the Ld. Trial Court.

Appellate Court Decision

The matter when reached by the High Court, the Hon’ble discussed the following statutory provisions of Special Marriage to come to a justifiable decision. The Hon’ble Court referred to two statutory provisions relevant to the adjudication of the present case i.e., Section 17 of Contract Act and Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act.

Fraud is defined under Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act which means and includes that active concealment of a fact despite having knowledge or belief of the fact would amount to an exercise of fraud.

Section 25 of the Act lays down certain conditions in which the marriage solemnized under the Act can be held null and void. One of the conditions states that if the petitioner at the time of the marriage was ignorant of the facts alleged, that is a valid ground to move the court seeking a decree of nullity of marriage.

One of the material evidence available before the Hon’ble High Court was a reference to one of the exhibits (“Exhibit P-1”), executed by the appellant/wife. Exhibit P-1 was a legal contractual document namely ‘Iqrarnama’ which was signed by the wife, her brother Jugal Kishore, and Mohd. Salim. The Hon’ble Court duly noted the fact that during the cross-examination, the Respondent/husband admitted that he had known the appellant for around 5-6 years before their marriage was solemnized. As per the Respondent, the Appellant had explained her unmarried status mentioning the absence of responsible family members but he explicitly denied having any knowledge about the Appellant’s previous marriage as it was never disclosed to him by his wife.

Contrary to the Respondent’s statement, the Appellant/wife admitted to being previously married before she had tied the knot with the Respondent, but she stated to have already informed the Respondent that she has been a widow since childhood. However, the statement of the Appellant/wife was not supported by any evidence in her pleadings as there was no mention of this fact being intimated by her to the respondent/husband.

The Hon’ble Appellate court noted that the Appellant/wife was already married at the time of her marriage with the Respondent/husband and she did not disclose this material fact to her husband. Thus, the suppression of this material fact about the appellant/wife being previously married and was a widow at the time of her marriage amounts to an exercise of fraud. Reference was placed to Section 17(4) of the Indian Contract which states that to constitute fraud upon a party, it is not essential that the other party has done misrepresentation by express words. If a party has used deception to knowingly induce the other person to enter into a contract by active concealment or suppression of a material fact, it would amount to fraud.

Because of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Trial Court’s decision declaring the nullity of marriage between the parties was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh as well. The Respondent was thus held to be entitled to a decree of nullity under Section 25(iii) of the Special Marriage Act.