Bengaluru: Karnataka high court has granted relief to a govt school teacher by annulling his marriage, observing that “consent for marriage obtained by staring down the barrel of a police complaint is no consent at all”.A division bench comprising Justice DK Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan made the observation in an order passed last month, holding that fraud in matrimonial law need not always involve an explicit false representation. It can also arise from calculated conduct, such as filing a police complaint to use the law as a coercive device to obtain consent that would otherwise not have been given, the bench said.The appellant, now residing in Chitradurga, was serving as a teacher in Mangaluru taluk of Dakshina Kannada district when he married the respondent at the registrar’s office in Moodubidire on Sept 15, 2010.According to the teacher, the proposal originated at the instance of the woman’s father when he travelled to Kogre village in Koppa taluk to buy property. He claimed he was unaware she had already married another man in 2003 and had a son from that marriage. She obtained a divorce decree on May 26, 2010.After learning of her previous marriage, the teacher said he opposed the proposal. He alleged that the woman then threatened to file a police complaint and subsequently lodged one on Sept 10, 2010, alleging offences including cheating and deceitful cohabitation on the promise of marriage.The two married five days after the FIR was registered but did not live together. On June 25, 2011, the teacher approached a family court seeking a declaration that the marriage was null and void, alleging fraud and coercion.The woman opposed the petition, claiming the teacher had been in love with her since 2000 and had developed physical intimacy with her on the promise of marriage. She alleged that after he distanced himself, she was forced to marry another man. She further claimed he later persuaded her to obtain a divorce so they could live together.The family court dismissed the teacher’s petition on April 11, 2018, observing that he had willingly married her. He then approached the high court.The division bench noted that the woman had not cross-examined the teacher despite his specific allegation of fraud. It also said the family court had relied on her contentions and the marriage registration document without determining whether the couple had lived together as husband and wife.Referring to the FIR and the sequence of events, the bench observed that it appeared the woman had instituted the proceedings as a counterblast to the teacher’s refusal to marry her. The bench said the woman had not challenged the teacher’s testimony or taken steps to disprove his evidence. In view of these circumstances, it held that the case was fit for annulment under Section 12(1)(c) of Hindu Marriage Act and allowed the teacher’s appeal.
