Pune: In a recent ruling at the Pune Family Court, Chief Judge Manisha Kale annulled the marriage of an IT couple after determining that their marriage had not been consummated, leading to its legal incompletion.
The case, which involved communication between the wife in India and the husband residing in Canada, underscores the complexities that can arise in cross-border marriages.
The couple, Madhav and Madhavi (names changed), both work in the IT sector. Madhavi resides in Pune, while Madhav is employed in Canada.
Their union was arranged through traditional matchmaking, and they had initially planned to solemnize their marriage with a Vedic ceremony, followed by relocation abroad.
However, in a sudden change of plans, Madhav persuaded Madhavi to first undergo a simple registered marriage, citing the logistical advantages given his international residency.
Madhavi agreed, and the marriage was formally registered in January 2021. However, shortly after, Madhav began delaying the promised Vedic ceremony, citing various reasons. His repeated postponements left Madhavi in a state of uncertainty.
Ultimately, Madhav returned to Canada without fulfilling the commitment of a traditional Vedic wedding.
More concerning was the fact that the couple had not established a physical relationship following their registered marriage. Madhavi, feeling deceived, decided to take legal recourse and filed a petition for annulment in the Pune Family Court, arguing that the marriage had not been consummated and was therefore incomplete.
During the court proceedings, both Madhav and Madhavi were examined. Advocate K.T. Aaru-Patil, representing Madhavi, provided evidence via video conferencing with Madhav, who was residing in Canada at the time.
The case raised significant legal and emotional considerations, particularly around the expectations of marriage and the issue of consummation as a crucial element of marital validity.
After reviewing the facts, the court concluded that the lack of consummation meant the marriage could not be considered legally valid, and therefore granted the annulment.
Advocate K. T. Aaru-Patil emphasized that the petition for annulment had been filed within the legally stipulated one-year period, as required by law. The couple's marriage had been registered in January 2021, and Madhavi submitted her annulment request in September of the same year.
Unlike a divorce, which typically leaves a formal record of the separation, annulment is a legal declaration that the marriage was never valid in the first place, and no such label will be applied to either party.