Marriage Can't Continue After Fraud Over Age And Horoscope Match: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has dissolved a marriage between a bank manager and a government employee after noting that the husband had furnished an incorrect date of birth on an online matrimonial platform, leading the wife to enter into the marriage under a mistaken belief regarding his age and horoscope compatibility.

A Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao allowed an appeal filed by the wife and set aside an order of the Family Court at Rangareddy, which had earlier dismissed her petition seeking annulment of the marriage.

The case arose out of an arranged marriage solemnised on August 24, 2018. The parties came into contact through an online matrimonial portal. According to the wife, the husband represented his date of birth as February 9, 1981. Relying on that information, her family obtained horoscope matching and proceeded with the marriage. The wife, who belonged to an orthodox family and attached significance to horoscope compatibility, claimed she believed both parties belonged to the same age group and were similarly placed as government employees.

The marriage was consummated and the couple briefly lived together. However, the wife later discovered during the process of marriage registration that the husband's actual date of birth was February 9, 1974, making him substantially older than what had been represented before the marriage. She alleged that the incorrect disclosure had resulted in an inaccurate horoscope match and amounted to fraud and cheating.

Seeking relief, she approached the Family Court under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which deals with marriages where consent is obtained through fraud concerning a material fact or circumstance relating to a spouse. The Family Court, however, rejected her plea.

Before the High Court, the wife was represented by Mrs. Pushpinder Kaur, appearing for advocate G. Durga Charan, while advocate G. Ramakrishna appeared on behalf of advocate Pradeep Kumar Lahot for the husband.

The Bench examined the statutory provision and observed that the wife's primary allegation was that the husband had furnished a wrong date of birth, which ultimately led to an incorrect horoscope assessment. The Court noted that criminal proceedings initiated by the wife and a domestic violence case were also pending between the parties.

During the hearing of the appeal, both sides informed the Court that they were no longer interested in continuing the marital relationship. Affidavits were also filed by the parties recording their respective positions. The wife expressed willingness to withdraw the pending criminal and domestic violence proceedings subject to a fair settlement and return of her gold ornaments. The husband, on the other hand, stated that he would consent to the appeal if those proceedings were withdrawn.

The Bench observed that the disputes relating to gold ornaments, settlement amounts and other monetary claims involved disputed questions of fact which could not be adjudicated in the appeal proceedings.

Significantly, the Court noted that there was no possibility of reunion between the parties. "Both the appellant and the respondent are not interested to lead the marital life. Therefore, there is no possibility of reunion," the Bench observed.

The Court also clarified that permanent alimony could not be granted in the appeal because no separate application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act had been filed by the wife. Rejecting the argument that such relief could be granted without a specific application, the Bench held that "a separate application is required to be made for seeking permanent alimony."

Allowing the appeal, the Court dissolved the marriage by granting a decree of divorce and set aside the Family Court's order. At the same time, it granted liberty to the wife to pursue appropriate remedies regarding permanent alimony and the return of gold ornaments before the competent forum, including in the pending domestic violence proceedings.

Case Title: xxxxxxxx v. xxxxxxxx

Date of Order: May 4, 2026

Bench: Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao