Deception, Consent, and the Digital Age of Marriage:Effect of False Advertising on Matrimonial Site

Introduction

Indian marriage has been characterized as both a holy and contractual institution. It is a reflection of the religious sanctity of the union, but it also follows a legal structure that upholds individual choice and consent. In contemporary India, where more and more matrimonial unions are being arranged over the internet, issues related to trust and disclosure have gained even greater importance. 

The recent ruling of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sameer Pareek v. Shweta Pareek née Bhatt highlights such concerns, discussing how misrepresentation on matrimonial websites can invalidate consent and make a marriage voidable under the Hindu Marriage Act.

This was not just a case of one woman and one man in conflict over secrets from the past. It had larger implications for how honesty, online platforms, and matrimonial choice interconnect in modern Indian life. By holding that misstatements regarding marital background and income constituted fraud, the Court reinforced the point that real consent is the foundation of marriage, and dishonesty will have no room in such a fundamental human bond.

Facts

The union of Sameer and Shweta was arranged by the popular matrimonial site Shaadi.com. Sameer's profile mentioned that he was never married and earned 200K dollars and above per annum. For Shweta, who was an educated professional looking for someone with similar goals, these were clinching points. She specifically wanted a partner who was never married, and the filtering mechanism of the site had proposed Sameer's profile on that basis.

The two had first met, fell in love, and then got married in 2014. However, what followed were a series of revelations that shook the core of their relationship. Shweta found out that Sameer was earlier married and that he even had a kid from the previous marriage. She also found out that his real income was between $120 and $130K, significantly lower than the $200K that was posted on the portal. These revelations left her feeling cheated.

In 2017, she had moved a petition in the Family Court under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of the marriage on the ground that her consent had been induced by fraud. The Family Court adjudged in her favour in January 2024, declaring the marriage to be null and void. Sameer had challenged this order in the Delhi High Court, and hence the current appeal.

Issues Before the High Court

The primary question that came before the High Court was whether Sameer's misrepresentations — his "never married" claim and his exaggerated salary numbers — constituted concealment of "material facts" under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In other words, whether or not these lies were so basic that they invalidated Shweta's consent and rendered the marriage voidable.

And another question of limitation: if the petition for annulment was filed late, as Shweta had already suspected fraud in 2016 itself when she approached the Crime Against Women Cell and lodged a complaint. 

Arguments Advanced

On behalf of Sameer, the arguments that were advanced were that Shweta already knew about his earlier marriage prior to their marriage. He stated that he had revealed this fact during a café meeting in November 2014, in front of his sister, and thus there was no cover-up. He also argued that the online profile had been prepared by his parents, who did not know anything about his history, and he had no direct involvement in the deceptions. 

He also attempted to interpret the word "unmarried" narrowly, arguing that it could only mean he was unmarried when he married Shweta, and not "never married." On limitation, his lawyer added that since Shweta had suspected fraud in 2016, the annulment petition that had been brought in 2017 was tardy.

Shweta's lawyer rejected these arguments vigorously. She argued that the story of café disclosure was fabricated and not corroborated. She emphasized that she had been led into agreeing to the marriage largely due to Sameer's false statement that he was "never married" and his overstated salary.

These, she contended, were material considerations without which she would never have agreed. The circumstance that Sameer also had a child from his earlier marriage added to the severity of the deception. On limitation, she argued that the petition was made within one year of when she discovered the fraud and therefore within statutory time frames.

Analysis of the Court

The Court started by analyzing the statutory provision. Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that a marriage is voidable where consent was procured by "fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent." The phrase here is "material fact." The Court highlighted that not all misrepresentations are fraud; only those facts related to the essence of marital consent come within this section.

In considering whether the withholding of an earlier marriage and concealment of salary constituted such material facts, the Court had recourse to settled precedents.

In Sujatha v. Hariharan, the Madras High Court had considered a situation in which a husband had withheld his mental illness prior to marriage. At paragraph 17, the Court held fraud under Section 12(1)(c) to necessitate intentional withholding of facts that are central to marital consent. 

Not all omissions would constitute fraud, but withholding serious conditions which would have a decisive bearing on whether or not to marry would. The Delhi High Court relied upon this principle, holding that Sameer's hiding of his previous marriage and child was similar to suppression of mental illness in Sujatha — both were essential to informed consent.

In Jasbeer v. Nishta Dawar, the Delhi High Court, following Sujatha, reaffirmed fraud is wherever there has been intentional suppression of information which is central to consent. At paragraph 17, it explained that material fact test is whether disclosure of such would have altered the decision to marry. Applying this principle, the current Court decided that disclosure of Sameer's earlier marriage and child would indisputably have changed Shweta's choice, thus fulfilling Section 12(1)(c).

In Pradeep s/o Namdeorao Ambhore v. Pallavi Pradeep Ambhore, Bombay High Court considered concealment of sickle cell anaemia. At paragraph 18, it ruled that material facts are those which, if revealed, would disrupt marital life or lead to withholding of consent. They should pertain to the individual or personality of the respondent. The Delhi High Court employed this rationale, holding marital history and financial background as material as health conditions in determining matrimonial choices.

In Rajinder Singh v. Pomila, the Delhi High Court dealt with concealment of a previous marriage. At paragraph 23, the Court decided that suppression of an earlier marital bond was within Section 12(1)(c), as a party owes a duty to reveal such essential information to the other. 

The Court laid stress on the fact that whereas marriage under Hindu law is both sacrament and contract, fraud here has to be construed as misrepresentation of facts so essential that they percolate into consent. Borrowing from this, the Bench opined that Sameer's deception about his initial marriage — and specifically the news that he had a child — went to the very heart of Shweta's decision to wed. 

In Anurag Anand v. Sunita Anand, the Delhi High Court had addressed misrepresentation of income in matrimonial biodatas. The Court held that in the case of alliances being arranged through the swapping of biodatas, precision is the key. Misrepresentation regarding income and property status were held to be fraud under Section 12. The current Court drew upon this precedent to find that Sameer's overstatement of his income to "USD 200K and above" amounted to a material misrepresentation, particularly since he had conceded that his actual income was 120K–130K USD.

By combining these rulings, the Delhi High Court argued that concealment of a previous marriage and child, along with exaggerated income returns, was fraud under Section 12(1)(c). These were not technical errors but intentional withholding of material facts.

On the issue of limitation, the Court ruled that suspicions of Shweta in 2016 did not constitute discovery of fraud. It was only where and when she had acquired evidence of Sameer's antecedents, and since the annulment petition was filed within a year thereof, it was in time.

The Court rejected Sameer's claim that his parents had set up the profile. It observed that he had used the portal actively to communicate and thus was responsible for its content. Additionally, matrimonial websites specifically offer "divorced" as a category and his selection of "never married" constitutes a voluntary misrepresentation.
Finally, the Court confirmed the Family Court's decree of annulment and rejected the appeal.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Sameer Pareek v. Shweta Pareek resonates beyond the facts of one marriage. It signals a clear message about accountability in digital matrimonial practices. Online platforms may be virtual, but the representations made there carry very real consequences. Misrepresentations about marital history, income, health, or family status are not trivial; they are material facts that shape life-altering decisions.

By affirming that concealment of a prior marriage and misstatement of income amount to fraud under Section 12(1)(c), the Court has reinforced the sanctity of informed consent in marriage. It has reminded individuals that while marriage may retain its sacramental aura, its legal validity rests on truth and transparency. In an era where matchmaking increasingly begins with an online profile, the judgment underlines the importance of honesty as the first bond of matrimony.

FAQS

1. What was the central issue in Sameer Pareek v. Shweta Pareek?
The main issue was whether false claims on a matrimonial website — specifically declaring oneself as “never married” when previously married with a child, and exaggerating income — amounted to fraud under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, thereby making the marriage voidable.

2. What does Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act say?
It states that a marriage is voidable if consent for the marriage was obtained by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent. In other words, if one party conceals or misrepresents crucial facts, the other party can seek annulment.

3. Why did the Court say that “never married” and “unmarried” are different?
The Court explained that “never married” is an unambiguous lifelong status, meaning the person has never entered into marriage. “Unmarried,” however, is broader and could include someone who was divorced or widowed. Declaring “never married” when one has previously been married is therefore a deliberate misrepresentation.

4. Was misrepresentation of income treated as fraud?
Yes. The Court held that inflating income on a matrimonial profile is a material misrepresentation. It relied on earlier judgments which recognized that income and property status are decisive factors in matrimonial decisions, especially in alliances made through biodatas or online platforms.

5. Did the Court consider limitation (delay in filing)?
Yes. The husband argued that the annulment petition was filed too late. The Court rejected this, holding that limitation begins from the actual discovery of fraud, not from the point of suspicion. Since the petition was filed within a year of proof being obtained, it was within time.

6. What precedents did the Court rely on?
The Court drew from several judgments: Sujatha v. Hariharan (concealment of mental illness, para 17), Jasbeer v. Nishta Dawar (fraud test based on whether disclosure changes consent, para 17), Pradeep Ambhore (concealment of illness as material fact, para 18), Rajinder Singh v. Pomila (concealment of prior marriage, para 23), and Anurag Anand v. Sunita Anand (income misrepresentation as fraud).

7. What is the larger significance of this case?
The case highlights the growing importance of honesty in digital matrimonial practices. It affirms that online declarations are legally binding, and falsehoods about marital history or income can annul a marriage. The judgment sends a strong message that in the digital age, informed consent in marriage is inseparable from truthful online representations.