Annulment petitions built on pre-marriage concealment are common — and commonly fail, because petitioners underestimate what “fraud” means in matrimonial law. In FAT No. 119 of 2026 (2026:CHC-AS:1597-DB), decided on 22 September 2026, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Aryak Dutt affirmed the dismissal of a husband’s nullity suit under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The alleged concealment — the wife’s longstanding medical condition — collapsed against evidence of pre-marriage disclosure, the husband’s own pleadings, and his failure to examine the one witness who could have proved his case.
The dispute
The parties married on 22 February 2016 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The husband later sued for a declaration of nullity, alleging that the wife and her family had concealed her chronic medical condition — Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura following removal of the spleen, an ailment she had lived with since 2007. The wife’s answer was documentary and specific: her medical file had been couriered to the husband’s father on 29 January 2016, before the marriage negotiations were concluded. The trial court dismissed the suit; the husband appealed.
Why the appeal failed
The Bench crystallised the standard: fraud, “carrying as it does an imputation of deliberate deceit, requires clear and cogent proof” and must be “strictly construed and sparingly applied.” The appeal was dismissed with costs of ₹1,00,000 payable to the wife within four weeks.
Fraud-based annulment: the statutory frame
| Element | Special Marriage Act, 1954 | Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 |
|---|---|---|
| Voidable for fraud | S. 25(iii) — consent obtained by coercion or fraud | S. 12(1)(c) — consent obtained by force or fraud as to the ceremony or a material fact about the respondent |
| Time bar | Petition within one year of the fraud ceasing / being discovered | Petition within one year of discovery of the fraud |
| Conduct bar | No relief after cohabitation as spouses with free consent after discovery | No relief where the petitioner lived with the respondent after discovering the fraud |
The standard of proof does the real work in these cases. Matrimonial fraud sits close to an allegation of dishonesty; courts therefore demand evidence approaching the criminal standard in quality — contemporaneous documents, the negotiators themselves, and medical proof of materiality where illness is alleged.
Lessons for annulment litigation in Delhi
Delhi’s family courts apply the same discipline to petitions under Section 12 HMA and Section 25 SMA. Petitioners should assemble the disclosure trail before filing: who negotiated, what was exchanged, and what the medical record actually shows about severity. Electronic communications must be proved with the certificate now required under Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — the successor to Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act — or they will be excluded exactly as here. Respondents, conversely, should preserve proof of pre-marriage disclosures; the courier receipt in this case was worth more than any amount of oral denial. And both sides should watch the one-year clock, which extinguishes fraud petitions with unforgiving regularity.
Core holding: an annulment for fraud is not granted on grievance. It demands proof of deliberate concealment of a materially grave fact, brought in time, by a petitioner whose own record does not contradict him.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Annulment petitions are evidence-intensive and subject to strict limitation; specific advice should be taken early.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must be proved to annul a marriage for fraud?
That consent to the marriage was obtained by deliberate deceit about a matter material to the marriage — and the proof must be clear and cogent. Suspicion, post-marriage discovery of an unwelcome fact, or a spouse’s illness by itself does not suffice; the petitioner must establish concealment of a marriage-defeating fact and that consent was induced by it.
What was the alleged concealment here?
The husband alleged the wife concealed a chronic blood disorder — Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura, following a splenectomy — dating back years before the 2016 marriage. The wife’s case, accepted on the record, was that her medical papers had been sent to the husband’s father before the marriage negotiations concluded.
Why did the husband’s case fail on evidence?
Three gaps: his own pleading admitted that “health” was discussed during negotiations, yet his testimony omitted it; he did not examine his father, the principal negotiator who allegedly received the disclosure; and no medical evidence showed the condition was materially grave. WhatsApp material also failed for want of admissibility compliance.
Is the position the same under the Hindu Marriage Act?
Substantially, yes. Section 25(iii) SMA and Section 12(1)(c) HMA both make a marriage voidable for consent obtained by fraud, and both are subject to strict time and conduct bars — the petition must be brought within a year of discovering the fraud, and not after voluntary cohabitation with knowledge of it.