Telangana HC Dissolves Marriage Where Husband Misrepresented Age by Nine Years on Matrimonial Portal

A Telangana High Court Division Bench set aside a Family Court dismissal and granted a decree of divorce after the husband furnished a false date of birth on telugumatrimony.com, deceiving the wife about their age gap.

The High Court for the State of Telangana, in a judgment delivered on 4 May 2026, allowed a wife's Family Court Appeal and dissolved her marriage after finding that her husband had misrepresented his date of birth by seven years on an online matrimonial portal. The Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman, who authored the judgment, and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao reversed the order of the Family Court, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar, dated 3 May 2024, which had dismissed the wife's petition. The Bench granted a decree of divorce, while preserving the wife's right to pursue claims for gold ornaments and permanent alimony before an appropriate forum.

How the Dispute Arose

The parties married on 24 August 2018 as per Hindu rites and customs. It was an arranged marriage; the families were not previously acquainted and the parties connected through telugumatrimony.com. On that portal, the husband listed his date of birth as 09.02.1981. His actual date of birth, as the wife later discovered, was 09.02.1974 — making him nine years older than her at the time of marriage.

The wife was 36 years old at the time and described the marriage as a late one. She came from an orthodox family that placed weight on horoscope matching. Relying on the date of birth the husband had furnished, her parents obtained a horoscope and proceeded with the match on the belief that both parties were from the same age group and were government servants. The marriage was consummated after she joined the husband at Vijayawada.

In November 2018, both parties visited the office of the Sub-Registrar, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, to register their marriage. It was at that point that the wife first saw the husband's actual date of birth in official records. She filed F.C.O.P. No.908 of 2019 before the Family Court on 27 June 2019, seeking a decree of nullity under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Separately, the wife lodged a police complaint. A case was registered as Crime No.894 of 2019 at Rajendranagar Police Station, and after investigation a charge-sheet was filed, taken on file as C.C. No.1713 of 2019 before the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy District, Rajendranagar. The wife also filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act as D.V.C. No.41 of 2019. Both proceedings were pending at the time of the appeal.

What Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act Requires

Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that a marriage is voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity where the consent of the petitioner was obtained by force or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent.

The Family Court dismissed the petition after considering oral and documentary evidence. The wife had examined herself as PW.1 and produced Exhibits P.1 to P.8. The husband examined himself as RW.1 and produced a panchayat elder as RW.2, along with Exhibits R.1 to R.4. The Family Court found against the wife on the evidence.

The Division Bench's Reasoning

Before the Division Bench, the court noted a significant development: both parties, through their respective counsel, stated on instructions that neither wished to continue the marital relationship. The wife filed an affidavit bearing USR No.56984 of 2026, dated 1 May 2026, and the husband filed an affidavit bearing USR No.53860 of 2026, dated 27 April 2026.

In her affidavit, the wife stated she was willing to withdraw D.V.C. No.41 of 2019 and C.C. No.1713 of 2019, subject to receipt of a fair and reasonable full and final settlement amount and the return of her gold ornaments. The husband's affidavit recorded his qualified consent to allow the appeal and declare the marriage null and void, provided the wife withdrew C.C. No.724 of 2021 and D.V.C. No.41 of 2019.

The Bench observed that the dispute over the settlement amount and gold ornaments involved questions of fact that could not be resolved in the appeal. These were developments that arose during the pendency of the appeal and had not been pleaded or proved before the Family Court. The court declined to adjudicate those claims in the appeal proceedings.

On the question of permanent alimony, the Bench addressed a specific contention raised before it: that no separate application was required under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court disagreed. A bare reading of Section 25, the Bench held, clearly indicates that a separate application must be made for permanent alimony. The court referred to a Division Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kuldeep Rai v. Smt. Rita, reported as 2024 Supreme (MP) 201, in support of this position. Since the wife had filed no such application, the Bench declined to award permanent alimony in the appeal.

The Bench also noted the personal circumstances of the parties at the time of filing the original petition: the wife was approximately 37 years old and the husband approximately 45 years old. By the time of the appeal judgment, the wife was about 44 years old and the husband about 55 years old. The wife works as a Manager in Punjab National Bank; the husband is an Accounts Officer in APSPDCL. The court found there was no possibility of reunion.

Outcome

The Division Bench allowed F.C.A. No.226 of 2024 and set aside the Family Court's order dated 3 May 2024 in F.C.O.P. No.908 of 2019. F.C.O.P. No.908 of 2019 was itself allowed. The marriage solemnised on 24 August 2018 was dissolved by a decree of divorce.

The wife was granted liberty to pursue her remedies regarding the return of gold ornaments and permanent alimony before an appropriate forum, including within the pending D.V.C. No.41 of 2019. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the appeal were closed as a consequence.