Barathkumar K M | Sastra Deemed to be University Thanjavur | 3rd July 2020
Asha Qureshi Vs Afaq Qureshi
Facts:
The appellant and the respondent were husband and wife. They lived as husband and wife for one year. Only after the marriage, the respondent came to know that the appellant was already married to Motilal Vishwakarma. But he died before the marriage of the parties. While marrying the respondent, the appellant stated that she was a virgin. The fact of the first marriage of the respondent with the appellant was suppressed by her. The respondent filed a case against the appellant under sec 24 of the special marriage act to state that the marriage is null and void.
Issue:
- Whether not disclosing the first marriage amounts to fraud?
Legal provision:
- Sec 24 of the Special Marriage Act
- Sec 17 of the Indian Contracts Act
Appellant’s contention:
The appellant contended that the appellant and the respondent had known each other for a long time. Thus, the respondent was aware of the appellant’s marriage. Thus there is no fraud in the marriage between the appellant and the respondent.
Respondent’s contention:
The respondent contended that the appellant failed to disclose about her first marriage to the respondent and also she lied that she was a virgin. Thus, according to sec 17 of the Indian Contracts Act, the appellant conducted a fraudulent act.
Observation:
It was observed that according to sec 17(1) of the Indian Contracts Act, suggesting a fact which is not true is a fraud. Thus, the appellant conducted a fraudulent act. The fraudulent marriage was held to be null and void under sec 24 of the Specific Marriage Act.
Judgment:
The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that not disclosing their first marriage to their spouse amounts to fraudulent act. Under sec 17(1) of the Indian Contracts Act, suggesting a fact which is not true is a fraud. According to sec 24 of the Specific Marriage Act, this case became null and void. Thus, the appeal was dismissed and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court confirmed the order of the trial court and granted divorce to them.
Leave a Reply