2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 36 of 2022 ---- Rajesh Murmu, aged about 31 years, son of late Doman Murmu, resident of village Edelbera P.O. and P.S. Ghatshila, District East Singhbhum.… … Petitioner/Appellant Versus Anita Mardi, wife of Rajesh Murmu and daughter of Bajun Mardi, aged about 27 years, resident of village Paruliya, P.O. Dumuria, P.S. Masabani, District-East Singhbhum … … Respondent/Respondent ------- CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate For the Respondent : None -------- Order No. 06 : Dated 17th December, 2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J: Prayer: 1. The instant appeal under Section 39 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is directed against the judgment dated 13th December, 2021 and decree signed on 18th December, 2021 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, East Singhbhum Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 41 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the petitioner-appellant [husband] under Section 25(iii) of the Special Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage, has been dismissed. Factual Aspect: 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the impugned order, reads as under: 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 2 - 3. The marriage between the petitioner-appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 06.01.2020 before the Marriage Registrar at Ghatshila under Special Marriage Act, 1954. The parties were Schedule Tribes at the time of marriage and they continued to be so even at the time of filing of the suit before the learned family court. The marriage of the parties was registered bearing Registration Certificate No.2/2020 dated 06.01.2020. 4. It is further case of the appellant that at the time of solemnization of their marriage in their own tribal rituals, the petitioner-appellant and his family members came to know that the respondent is a widow lady whose marriage was dissolved due to death of her earlier husband of village Benagadiya, East Singhbhum and after that respondent again tried to marry another boy of village Dorasa, East Singhbhum which was disallowed by the villagers of that village due to reason of her being widow. It is further stated that when this petitioner-appellant tried to solemnize their marriage by tribal rituals, the villagers of Edelbera, East Singhbhum, who belongs to Tribal Culture opposed to do so as the same is barred by the tribal culture stating that the marriage of widow cannot be performed under tribal rituals. So the petitioner-appellant was suddenly surprised on hearing the fact that the respondent is a widow lady and the 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 3 - respondent has falsely represented herself as unmarried, appeared before the Marriage Registrar Ghatshila and got the registration of the marriage by making false statement by way of affidavit before the Marriage Officer at Ghatshila. 5. It is further case of the petitioner-appellant that the parties have neither cohabited as husband and wife at matrimonial home and the marriage has not been consummated. 6. It has been stated that when this fact was disclosed to the family members of the petitioner-appellant, then the petitioner-appellant being cheated did not consummate the marriage. Further case of the petitioner-appellant is that on 12.01.2020 the respondent-wife had left the house of the petitioner-appellant after taking all her gold and silver ornaments and other valuable articles and since then she is residing in her parents‟ House without having any concern with the petitioner-appellant and his family members. When the petitioner-appellant contacted the respondent on 24.02.2020 for clarification for such illegal act and for mutual divorce, the respondent flatly refused for the same rather she told that she will live in matrimonial house forcefully as such it has become necessary for the petitioner-appellant to file this petition for getting the marriage solemnized between the 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 4 - petitioner-appellant and respondent dissolved and the petitioner-appellant is entitled for the same. 7. Further, it is contended that due to such mental torture, unkind, cruel and harassing conduct of the respondent, the petitioner-appellant has suffered mental agony and on this score too, the petitioner-appellant is entitled for a decree of dissolution of marriage illegally solemnized on 06.01.2020. 8. It has been contended that from the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is very clear that the intention of the respondent was not good from the beginning of the filing of the marriage application and she has suppressed the actual facts before the Marriage Officer, Ghatshila and the certificate obtained by her is a null and void document and the marriage has not been acted upon and the certificate issued by the Marriage Officer, Ghatshila is a mere paper transaction. 9. The cause of action for the suit arose on and from 06.01.2020 and 24.02.2020 and 12.01.2020 and every subsequent dates at Village Edelbera, Ghatshila, East Singhbhum. 10. On the aforesaid facts, ground has been taken that the petitioner-husband has been cheated by the respondent-wife as such prayer has been made that the marriage certificate obtained by practicing fraud and cheating the petitioner- 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 5 - appellant since is a null and void document as such, the petitioner-appellant is entitled to a decree for dissolution by way of divorce. 11. In spite of issuance of notice through registered post and also through publication in newspaper, the respondent did not appear, so the suit proceeded ex-parte. 12. The petitioner-appellant, the husband herein examined himself as P.W. 1 and one other witness namely Sudarshan Murmu as P.W.2, however, no document in support of the evidence adduced on behalf of appellant has been filed before the learned family court. 13. Accordingly, the matter was heard by learned family court, who on appreciation of evidence adduced by the appellant and material available before him, dismissed the suit, against which the present appeal has been filed. Submission on behalf of appellant: 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the factual aspect which was available before the learned family court supported by the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant has not properly been considered and as such, the judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 15. It has been contended that the learned family court has erred in passing the impugned judgment without realizing the 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 6 - fact that the marriage between the appellant and respondent has not been consummated and they have never started their life of matrimony between themselves. 16. It has been submitted that it is apparent that the respondent-wife has suppressed the material fact that she was married twice and marriage with the appellant was third one. 17. Further submission has been made that certificate of marriage obtained from the office of Marriage Registrar, Ghatshila on 06.01.2020 since has been obtained by suppressing the fact that the respondent was married earlier and she is a widow lady but she deliberately sworn the affidavit stated her to be unmarried. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned family court has taken hyper-technical approach while appreciating the provisions of Section 25(iii) of the Special Marriage Act. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers from perversity, as such, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Analysis: 20. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the finding recorded by the 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 7 - learned Additional Principal Judge in the impugned judgment. 21. This Court, in order to come to a finding to the above point of adjudication has appreciated the testimony of the witnesses. 22. The petitioner-appellant in order to establish his case has examined himself and one other witness namely Sudarshan Murmu as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively. However, no document has been proved and exhibited on behalf of the petitioner is support of his case 23. This Court in order to appreciate the testimony available on record has gone through the testimonies of the witnesses. 24. P.W. 1-Rajesh Murmu in his examination-in-chief, given by way of affidavit, has corroborated his averments/ statements given in his plaint/petition by stating that he is working as Chief Cashier in Bank of India and he was married to respondent Anita Mardi on 06.01.2020 before Marriage Registrar, Ghatshila and it was a love marriage. At the time of said marriage, the respondent in her affidavit had deposed that she is unmarried and she also stated before him that she is unmarried. She got a marriage certificate bearing no.2/2020 dtd-01.01.20. After the registration of marriage when he reached his village on 08.01.2020 for performing marriage through Sarna Customs then he came to know from 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 8 - the villagers that respondent Anita Mardi is already married and her husband has died. But the respondent concealing this fact by playing fraud got married to him. When he inquired about this, respondent stopped talking to him. The villagers stopped them from performing marriage through Sarna Rituals started giving him mental torture. Their marriage could not become effective and since 12.01.2020 he is not having any relation with the respondent and she is staying at her parental place at Parulia, Khadgadia, Musaboni. He has further deposed tht he has not filed this suit with any collusion or hiding any fact and his claim for nullifying this marriage is correct. When he asked the respondent to dissolve the marriage she refused to do so and wrong and since inception her intention was wrong and got herself married to him by doing fraud by concealing the fact of previous marriage. 25. P.W.2, who is the cousin brother of the petitioner- appellant, has also corroborated the fact averred in the plaint and the evidence of the petitioner-P.W.1 by stating that the petitioner and respondent were married on 06.01.2020 before Marriage Registrar, Ghatshila and at the time of marriage the respondent had given an affidavit with her signature stating herself to be unmarried. The said fact was told to him by the petitioner-appellant. On 08.01.2020 when the petitioner- 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 9 - appellant told him that he want to get married with the respondent as per customs and the respondent is from his village, then he told the petitioner-appellant that she is already married and her husband has died. The respondent hiding this fact married the petitioner-appellant by cheating him. When he made inquiry about this he came to know that the respondent has cheated the petitioner-appellant and the villagers stopped them from performing marriage through Sarna customs. Then the petitioner-appellant told him that respondent stopped talking to the petitioner-appellant since 08.01.2020. He is also having the knowledge that when the petitioner-appellant asked the respondent for dissolution of the marriage, then she flatly refused and threatened the petitioner-appellant. From the beginning the intention of the respondent was wrong and hiding the said fact she got married to the petitioner-appellant and he also knows that their marriage has not been consummated and the petitioner- appellant is not having any relation with the respondent since 12.01.2020 and she is staying at her parental place. From the villagers he came to know that the respondent after playing fraud got married to the petitioner-appellant concealing the fact of her earlier marriage. The claim of the petitioner-appellant to nullify the marriage is correct. 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 10 - 26. The learned Family Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit by the impugned judgement and decree. 27. From the testimony adduced on behalf of appellant, it is evident that the said two witnesses have supported the contention/averments made in the plaint and have established from their oral evidence that the petitioner- appellant was married to the respondent on 06.01.2020 under the Special Marriage Act before the Marriage Registrar at Ghatshila. 28. It is the case of the appellant-husband that the respondent-wife at the time of marriage before the Registrar Ghatshila, while filing application, she on oath stated her status to be unmarried but latter on when the petitioner- appellant tried to do marriage with the respondent through Tribal rituals at his village at Edelbera the villagers opposed the solemnization of marriage between the petitioner- appellant and the respondent on the ground that the respondent is a widow as her earlier husband of village Benagadiya has died and marriage of a widow cannot be performed under the tribal rituals. So the said fact came into the knowledge of the petitioner-appellant when he went for social marriage as per tribal culture. 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 11 - 29. It is contended that the said fact is a material fact, which was not disclosed by the respondent at the time of their registered marriage. So it was a misrepresentation on the part of the respondent by concealing the fact of her earlier marriage. Such contention of the appellant-husband has been corroborated by P.W. 2 also in his testimony. Therefore, the ground of fraud has been made by the appellant-husband while giving his consent to the said marriage with the respondent which was due to concealment of the fact of her previous marriage by the respondent. Admittedly, before the learned family court, the petitioner-appellant did not substantiate his submission with any chit of paper and failed to produce the affidavit which was submitted by the respondent at the time of registered marriage in which allegedly the respondent had stated her status to be unmarried. 30. If the ground of fraud has been taken on the basis of affidavit so furnished by the respondent-wife before the Registrar of Marriage, then it was incumbent upon the appellant to produce the same but he failed to do so, as such it draws adverse inference against the appellant due to non production of said evidence. 31. Further in the plaint there is no averment as to when the said fraud was detected by the appellant-Rajesh Murmu 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 12 - although in his evidence he has stated that on 08.01.2020 he came to know about the fact that respondent Anita Mardi is a widow when he went to his village to get married through Sarna rituals. P.W.2 has deposed that he came to know about the said fact from P.W.1 on 08.01.2020. Therefore, as per testimony of P.W. 2 also, the said fraud was detected on 08.01.2020. 32. From the pleadings available on record, as discussed above, the moot question which fell for consideration before this Court is as to whether the respondent-wife played fraud upon the appellant by not disclosing the fact that she is a widow and married him through registered marriage at Ghatshila before the Marriage Registrar under Special Marriage Act? 33. 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:37895-DB - 13 - (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. 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 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 14 - 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 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.” 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 15 - 34. 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, creed, 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. 35. 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 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. 36. Section 7 of the said Act envisages that, any person before expiry of 30 days, notice 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. 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 16 - 37. 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 would 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 has been complied with. Therefore, the certificate of marriage issued by the marriage officer is conclusive proof 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. 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 17 - 38. 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 (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.” 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 18 - 39. Section 25(iii) of the Act 1954 envisages that the Court can grant a decree of nullity 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. 40. 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; (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. 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 19 - 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.” 41. 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. 42. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court is now re-adverting to the factual aspect of the instant case. 43. Herein, the appellant/husband is under Section 25(iii) of the Act of 1954 praying for a decree of nullity of the marriage solemnized on 06.01.2020 under the Act of 1954 vide Marriage Certificate No.2/2020 dated 6.1.2020 on the ground of it having been solemnized in a fraudulent manner. 44. 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. 45. The appellant has examined altogether two oral witnesses in support of his contention and admittedly no 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 20 - document was produced before the learned family in support of his contention. 46. Furthermore, 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 he is appearing before the Special Marriage Officer for registration of the marriage and he presented the documents as required and put his signature. The marriage certificate has validly been issued, which is not in question rather the declaration given by the respondent-wife that though she is a widow lady but in the affidavit she has given declaration that she is unmarried only on the ground of suit has been instituted seeking decree of divorce. 47. Herein, it is not the case that appellant married respondent without his free will and consent and he was not put under any fraud or coercion. It It is the case of the appellant that when he went for solemnization of marriage as per Sarna customs then only in village he came to know that the respondent is widow, which she concealed as such there is fraud played by her for contracting marriage. 48. Learned family court further took note of the fact that as per clause (a) of second proviso to section 25 of the Special 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 21 - Marriage Act, the court shall not grant a decree if proceedings have not been instituted within one year after the fraud had been discovered. In the case at hand, the fraud was detected on 08.01.2020 and the present suit was filed on 18.01.2021 i.e., after more than one years. So the statutory period for filing the present suit has not been adhered to by the appellant and has not been filed within prescribed time, so as per the said provision, he is not entitled for decree of divorce under section 25(iii) of the Special Marriage Act. 49. For the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to take a distinct view as has been taken by learned family court. 50. The learned family Judge, has also took note that in Clause (b) of the second proviso to section 25 of Special Marriage Act, it has been provisioned that after the fraud has been discovered, the appellant if has with his or her free consent lived with the other party to the marriage as husband and wife, the court shall not grant a decree. As per para 8 of the plaint/petition the parties has neither cohabited as husband and wife at the matrimonial home and marriage has not been consummated, although there is no categorical assertion in the plaint that after 08.01.2020 when the fraud was discovered the petitioner-appellant and the respondent did not live as husband and wife with their free consent and 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 22 - even in the evidence of the petitioner-appellant also it has not been categorically stated that since 08.01.2020, the petitioner-appellant and the respondent did not live as husband and wife as per their own free consent and as per para 11 of his evidence, the petitioner-appellant is not having any relation with the respondent since 12.01.2020, so the appellant has also not been able to clearly satisfy the requirement of said clause (b) also which was also necessary for getting a decree. So the appellant has not satisfied all the necessary requirements of law in order to get a decree under the said provision. 51. On the basis of discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that all the ingredients of section 25(iii) of the Special Marriage Act has not been satisfied and the appellant has accordingly failed to establish his case and hence he is not entitled to the relief U/s 25(iii) of the Special Marriage Act of annulling the marriage solemnized between the petitioner-appellant and the respondent on 06.01.2020 before the Marriage Registrar Ghatshila under the Special Marriage Act. 52. The learned family judge, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, has dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner- appellant [husband] under Section 25(iii) of the Special 2025:JHHC:37895-DB - 23 - Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage, which according to our considered view requires no interference. 53. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 54. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 17th December, 2025 A.F.R. Alankar/-