Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

Singh v Kumar [2005] FJHC 315; HBM0001.2005L (21 January 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT

HBM0001 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

ASHIKA SINGH
f/n Sahodar Singh
Petitioner

AND:

SARJIH ANAND KUMAR
f/n Deo Kumar
Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. D. Gordon
Respondent in Person

Date of Hearing & Ruling: 21 January 2005

RULING

In this matter, the petitioner seeks by petition filed with the court the decree of the marriage solemnized on the 2^nd November 2004 at Lautoka between the petitioner and respondent is void because the consent of the petitioner was not a real consent because it was obtained by duress.

The respondent appears and does not oppose the petition and does not place anything before the court in response to the matters raised by the petitioner in support of her petition.

Section 34 of the Matrimonial Causes Act provides that a petition for decree of nullity of marriage may be based on the ground that the marriage is void or on the ground that is voidable. In this instance it is based upon the ground that the marriage is void.

Section 6 of the Matrimonial Causes Act provides that a marriage may be void where the consent of either of the parties is not a real consent because it was obtained by duress or fraud.

The petitioner has sworn an affidavit on the 11^th January 2005 and has given brief oral evidence before the court today confirming the contents of that affidavit. The affidavit chronicles the history of the relationship between the petitioner and her parents and the actions of her parents that led to the marriage on the 2^nd November 2004 and in particular, it details events that occurred between the 9^th May 2004 and the date of marriage.

On the basis of the material contained in that affidavit, I am satisfied that the provisions of section 6 of the Matrimonial Causes Act is satisfied, that is, I am satisfied that the consent of the petitioner was not a real consent to the marriage because it was obtained by duress in the circumstances detailed in the affidavit and accordingly the order I make is that a decree of nullity of the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on the 2^nd November 2004 be granted on the ground that the marriage is void as the consent of the petitioner was not a real consent as it was obtained by duress.

JOHN CONNORS
JUDGE

At Lautoka
21 January 2005