Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging that marriage was performed by giving false information about educational qualification and hence, it was a fraudulent marriage, a single-judge bench comprising of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., dismissed the petition due to the lack of merit in the allegations of fraudulent marriage and the serious nature of the defamatory statements made against the Police Department and the mother-in-law of petitioner 3 and ordered the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 within one month, failure to do so would result in contempt of court proceedings.
In the instant matter, the petitioners filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging that his marriage to wife-respondent 11 was based on fraudulent information regarding her educational qualifications. It was claimed that respondent 11 misrepresented having passed Class 12th when she had only passed Class 10th. The petitioners also made wild allegations against the Police Department and attempted to tarnish the character of husband-petitioner 3’s mother-in-law. During the proceedings, the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the petition after making extensive arguments and wild allegations against the Police Department and the mother-in-law of petitioner 3. The Court refused the withdrawal of the petition due to the serious nature of the allegations made. The SHO of Mahila Thana, Katni, investigated the allegations of fraudulent marriage and harassment. The SHO concluded that while husband-petitioner 3 and wife-respondent 11 were married, no offense was found.
The Court directed the petitioners to address whether the allegations against respondent 11 constituted an offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court stated that “Since, the matter relates to marriage, therefore the counsel for petitioners was directed to point out from Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act whether such an allegation would be covered by Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act or not?”
The Court noted that misrepresentation of educational qualifications in a marriage does not constitute deception under the IPC, nor does it provide grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court noted that such allegations did not amount to an offense under Section 420 of the IPC as they did not deceive the petitioner into delivering property. The Court stated that “if any marriage is performed by giving a wrong information about educational qualification, then neither it would be void marriage not it would be voidable marriage.” The Court held that the allegations of fraudulent marriage did not amount to an offense under Section 420 of the IPC.
The Court held that allegations against the Police Department lacked substantiation and deemed as defamatory and granted the Police Department the liberty to pursue legal action against the petitioners. The Court asserted that character assassination without legal basis undermines the integrity of the legal process and individuals involved, warranting legal action. The Court found the allegations against the mother-in-law of petitioner 3 as character assassination and granted her the liberty to prosecute the petitioners for making wild allegations of character assassination. The Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 25,000 to be paid by the petitioners within one month, failing which contempt proceedings would be initiated.
[Bharat Singh Chouhan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 2200, order dated 12-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Vivek Agrawal with Shri Ankit Singh Chauhan, Counsel for the Petitioners
Shri Mohan Sausarkar, Government Advocate, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and 2
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
