mumbai the bombay high court recently annulled an almost decadeold marriage of a couple holding that it was voidable as consent of the man was obtained by suppression of relevant facts and by fraudthe hc observed that the woman had contacted the man through her sisters online profile on a matrimony site the fact that the contact was initiated by the woman not the man and from her sisters profile assumes significance in context of her own profile said the hc noting her admission that her son and sister were not present during her marriage the hc said pertinently she had not explained the absence of her son at the wedding and the only plausible explanation can be that she had not informed the man she was marrying about himthe hc bench of justices nitin jamdar and sharmila deshmukh said the case attracted the hindu marriage acts section 12 1 which deals with voidable marriage one ground for courts to hold marriages as void is if consent of petitionerhusband or wifeis obtained by force or by fraud relating to nature of ceremony or any other fact or circumstance concerning the other sidein october 2014 the man now 57 had filed for annulment of their november 2013 marriage solemnized under the hindu vedic rites he alleged she had portrayed herself as unmarried though she had a subsisting marriage and a child from it his petition was transferred to the thane family court in 2017 last october it declared the marriage null and void with effect from the date of the decree of nullitythe woman 56 had earlier this year appealed against the nullity decree she informed the court she had suppressed nothing and her own profile on the matrimonial website showed her status as divorceeleavingin sic she said she was never married earlier and her son born in 1999 was from a livein relationship that had ended 15 years ago the hc said the dispute centers around two issuesthe womans prior marriage and her suppression of such marriage the man had sought annulment also under section 11 of hindu marriage act which says a marriage is void when either party is already married from the record before family court and submissions before it hc held there is nothing to prove the woman had a subsisting marriage in 2013the hc thus partially upheld the family court order and annulled the marriage holding it to be voidable not voidthe hc ruled we find that the petitioner husband has proved that the respondent wife had suppressed material facts from the petitioner at the time of the marriage and the consent of petitioner was obtained by fraud hence the marriageis voidable marriage and not a null and void marriage it thus annulled the marriage