Neel H. Patel v. Bhoomika Patel

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: March 25, 2025
• Docket: A-3448-23
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3448-23

NEEL H. PATEL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BHOOMIKA PATEL,

Defendant-Respondent. __________________________

Argued March 12, 2025 – Decided March 25, 2025

Before Judges Mayer and Puglisi.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Ocean County, Docket No. FM-15-0928-23.

Michael Confusione argued the cause for appellant (Hegge & Confusione, LLC, attorneys; Michael Confusione, on the briefs).

Ruchika S. Hira argued the cause for respondent (Hira & Strlovski, LLC, attorneys; Ruchika S. Hira, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM Plaintiff Neel H. Patel appeals from a June 14, 2024 judgment of divorce

granted to defendant Bhoomika Patel based on irreconcilable differences.

Plaintiff focuses his argument on the Family Part judge's denial of his request

for an annulment of the marriage. We affirm.

Plaintiff sought an annulment, alleging defendant committed fraud based

on misrepresentations before, during, and after the marriage. He also claimed

defendant fraudulently married him for the sole purpose of obtaining a green

card to enter the United States. Defendant opposed the annulment and

counterclaimed for divorce based on irreconcilable differences.

We summarize the facts from the testimony proffered by plaintiff's

witnesses.1 In September 2019, plaintiff and defendant met through a dating

website. In her dating profile, defendant described herself as a "fun- loving

person with a right mix of modern and traditional cultures." At that time,

plaintiff lived in the United States and defendant lived in India.

The parties continued communicating for several months. In January

2020, plaintiff and his parents traveled to India to meet defendant and her family.

The parties were engaged in February 2020. Plaintiff returned to India to marry

1 Defendant proffered no testimony because the judge denied plaintiff's request for an annulment at the close of plaintiff's proofs, finding plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving fraud sufficient to support an annulment of the marriage. A-3448-23 2 defendant in a civil ceremony on December 8, 2020. They lived separate and

apart until they could be married in a religious ceremony in India on November

28, 2021.

In seeking an annulment, plaintiff testified there were various "red flags"

and purported misrepresentations by defendant from the time they met until they

separated in September 2022.

The first "red flag" involved defendant's date of birth. Plaintiff testified

defendant's dating application stated her date of birth as July 1, 1995. Plaintiff

learned prior to the engagement that defendant's actual birthday was July 26,

1995. According to plaintiff, the parties' actual birth dates were important

because he read a horoscope suggesting a marriage between two people with

their specific birth dates would end in divorce.

Next, before plaintiff and defendant were engaged, they allegedly

discussed divorce. Plaintiff told defendant divorce was not an option for him

unless "crazy things" happened or there was physical abuse. Defendant

responded fights between married couples happened but "[c]heating should not

happen."

At trial, plaintiff testified no one in his family ever divorced. However,

on cross-examination, plaintiff conceded his mother's brother divorced at least

A-3448-23 3 once. Plaintiff testified the circumstances leading to his maternal uncle's

divorce were akin to his own situation because his uncle's first wife married the

uncle to obtain a green card. Plaintiff also learned defendant's brother divorced

and remarried.

The next "red flag" involved having children. Before the engagement,

plaintiff and defendant discussed starting a family. Defendant told plaintiff she

wanted two children: a boy and a girl. At the trial, plaintiff testified defendant

recanted and stated she did not want children. However, on cross-examination,

plaintiff conceded defendant only said it was not the right time to start a family ,

not that she no longer wanted to have children.

The next "red flag" occurred after the parties' engagement but before their

civil marriage ceremony. According to plaintiff, he confronted defendant about

her caste status as a "Patel." In response, defendant stated she was a "Patel"

even though her last name was not "Patel." Plaintiff also discovered defendant's

sister married someone "out of caste."

Another "red flag" involved plaintiff's discovery that defendant's family

did not participate in the traditional customs for celebrating Diwali. Plaintiff

learned this information after the engagement but before the civil marriage

ceremony.

A-3448-23 4 In August 2021, after the civil ceremony but before the religious

ceremony, plaintiff asked defendant if she married him to obtain a green card.

Defendant said "no." During cross-examination, plaintiff testified defendant

claimed she did not need to marry him because she could obtain a student visa

to enter the United States.

Also in between the civil ceremony but before the religious ceremony, the

parties filed an application with the United States Citizenship and Immigration

Services so defendant could live in the United States. While the application was

pending, plaintiff lived in New Jersey and defendant remained in India.

In October 2021, plaintiff told his parents he had second thoughts about

the religious marriage based on defendant's various misrepresentations.

According to plaintiff, his parents reassured him everything with defendant

would be all right after the religious marriage ceremony.

Around this same time, plaintiff asked defendant if she would sign a

prenuptial agreement prior to the religious ceremony. Defendant got upset and

there were no further discussions regarding a prenuptial agreement. Plaintiff

described this incident as another "red flag."

Plaintiff's best friend of nearly thirty years, Arth Shah, testified at trial.

Shah planned to attend the parties' religious ceremony. During the pre-marriage

A-3448-23 5 festivities, Shah explained he overheard defendant say: "[I]t's going to be a

matter of months before I move to America." At trial, Shah acknowledged this

statement "could be interpreted in a lot of ways." However, Shah testified he

interpreted defendant's statement as "a red flag."

Before the religious ceremony, Shah told plaintiff about defendant's

statement. Shah testified he was suspicious of defendant's statement and tried

to "warn" plaintiff to act on the suspicion. According to Shah, plaintiff rebuffed

him. After Shah and plaintiff "went back and forth multiple times," Shah told

plaintiff he was "not going to attend [plaintiff's] wedding if [plaintiff was] going

to . . . behave like this or not take any action." After this conversation, Shah

decided not to attend the wedding.

Despite these "red flags," plaintiff married defendant in a religious

ceremony in India on November 28, 2021. Plaintiff then returned to the United

States while defendant stayed in India.

Even though they were not living in the same household, the couple started

to argue in January 2022. At first, plaintiff thought the arguments were normal

but later believed defendant started the arguments to be able to assert abuse

allegations against him.

A-3448-23 6 Defendant received her visa to travel to the United States in April 2022.

Plaintiff traveled to India to bring defendant to the United States. The couple

lived with plaintiff's parents in New Jersey. After arriving in New Jersey,

plaintiff and his father testified defendant's demeanor changed. According to

plaintiff, defendant disrespected his parents, no longer wanted to have children ,

and expressed her opinions on various topics even though she had not been asked

to do so.

After defendant's green card arrived in July 2022, plaintiff testified

defendant became a different person and the couple argued frequently about

"stupid" things.

In September 2022, the parties agreed they needed some space and

decided to separate. Plaintiff purchased a one-way ticket for defendant to travel

to North Carolina. At no time did defendant asked plaintiff for a divorce.

Six months after they separated, plaintiff filed a complaint to annul the

marriage. At trial, plaintiff testified he felt "stupid," and should have acted in

sooner in response to all the "red flags." He told the judge defendant committed

fraud by making various misrepresentations to him before and during the

marriage. Plaintiff also claimed defendant only married him to obtain her green

card and that was her plan from the moment they began dating.

A-3448-23 7 The Family Part judge heard the trial testimony over two days in June

2024. Plaintiff proffered the testimony of his father, Shah, and Jenna Bekka, a

friend who spent time visiting with plaintiff and defendant in Canada and the

United States.

In addition, plaintiff testified on his own behalf. Despite the lack of direct

examination questions from plaintiff's counsel, the judge permitted plaintiff's

lengthy responses in the absence of pending questions from his attorney.

During his testimony, plaintiff frequently interrupted the judge's efforts to

curtail his drawn-out responses. On the multiple occasions, when the judge

attempted to focus plaintiff's testimony, plaintiff retorted, "this is my life."

At the conclusion of the testimony and after hearing legal argument from

plaintiff's counsel, the judge found plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving

the marriage was fraudulent to warrant annulment, but found his testimony

sufficient to satisfy defendant's cause of action for divorce based on

irreconcilable differences.

The judge accepted plaintiff's personal belief "that there was fraud that

was perpetrated on him by defendant." However, as the judge explained,

plaintiff refused to "accept that his marriage may have ended. He d[id]n't accept

A-3448-23 8 that some of his own actions or the actions of his family may have contributed

to the marriage ending."

The judge recited the various "red flags" identified by plaintiff during his

testimony. She expressly rejected plaintiff's claim that defendant plotted to

leave the marriage after obtaining a green card. As the judge noted, "plaintiff

has repeatedly stated that the defendant has never said from her own mouth that

she wants to end the relationship and, in fact, it [was] the plaintiff who filed for

divorce."

The judge acknowledged plaintiff's testimony that an annulment was

"deeply important to him" but explained "there [was] a compulsion or idea that

the defendant be 'punished' for ending the marriage." The judge stated, "the

facts [we]ren't adding up to what the plaintiff believe[d] happened." She

concluded plaintiff minimized his own actions contributing to the demise of the

marriage. Based on the testimony, the judge found plaintiff failed to prove

marital fraud for an annulment.

On appeal, plaintiff contends the judge erred in denying an annulment

because defendant committed fraud and only married him to obtain a green card.

We disagree.

A-3448-23 9 Because the Family Part judge's decision concerns a question of law, we

review the matter de novo. Ricci v. Ricci, 448 N.J. Super. 546, 565 (App. Div.

2017). N.J.S.A. 2A:34-1 sets forth the causes for judgments of nullity of a

marriage. One of the grounds for nullifying a marriage is fraud. N.J.S.A. 2A:34-

1(d). The Family Part, as a court of equity, has jurisdiction to annul a fraudulent

marriage contract. V.J.S. v. M.J.B., 249 N.J. Super. 318, 320 (Ch. Div. 1991).

"[A] determination of whether a fraud goes to the essential of the marriage must

be decided on a case-by-case basis." Ibid.

Here, the only cause for nullity in plaintiff's verified complaint is

governed by subsection (d) of the statute. The subsection, in relevant part,

permits nullity where there is "fraud as to the essentials of marriage," and either

or both of the parties have "not subsequently ratified the marriage." N.J.S.A.

2A:34-1(d).

Our courts have rejected the annulment of a marriage in a variety of

contexts. In Woodward v. Heichelbech, 97 N.J. Eq. 253, 257 (Ch. 1925), the

judge found untrue statements by the prospective husband regarding his

financial status were insufficient to warrant annulment of an unconsummated

marriage on the ground of fraud. As the Woodward judge wrote:

Courts are not designed to assist those, sui juris, who make stupid contracts. If the petitioner married for

A-3448-23 10 money (and she certainly did not marry for love), she made a bad bargain. Unfortunately, that in itself is no ground for relief under the circumstances of this case. A sound policy requires a far greater wrong than has been shown to dissolve a contract so peculiar as that of marriage, whether consummated of not.

[Id. at 258]

In Rhoades v. Rhoades, 10 N.J. Super. 432, 435 (App. Div. 1950), we held

the plaintiff's false representation prior to marriage that she had borne a child to

the defendant was not fraudulent. We determined "[a] court should not annul a

marriage on the ground of fraud except in extreme cases, where the particular

fraud goes to the very essence of the marriage." Id. at 438. "[A] mistake,

whether resulting from accident, or in general fraudulent practices, in respect to

character, fortune, health, or the like, does not render void what is done. A man

who means to act upon such representations should verify them by his own

inquiries." Ibid.

In Patel v. Navitlal, 265 N.J. Super. 404-05 (Ch. Div. 1992), the judge

denied the husband's application for annulment of the marriage because he failed

to prove the wife married him solely to gain entry to the United States. The

parties in Patel first married in a civil ceremony in India and applied to have the

wife enter the United States. Id. at 406. After the wife received her visa, the

husband became suspicious of her reasons for marrying him. Ibid. However,

A-3448-23 11 the husband proceeded to marry the wife in a religious ceremony in India despite

his suspicions. Id. at 406-07. In requesting an annulment, the husband claimed

the wife married him for the sole purpose of entering the United States. Id. at

408.

The party seeking an annulment "always bears the burden of proof." Ibid.

As the judge stated in Patel: "To entitle an applicant to an annulment, the proof

must be by clear and convincing evidence and not subject to the availability of

other inferences. This rule is equally applicable to the fraud as to the essentials

of the marriage as well as its existence prior to the marriage." Ibid. (citation

omitted). The judge concluded:

[T]he fraud, alleged to exist in this case, is not the type contemplated by our law sufficient in degree to annul a marriage. Nothing on the record in this case suggest that the [wife] was unwilling to act as a wife to the [husband] nor that she did not want to create for herself the status of wife.

[Id. at 410.]

The judge further explained, "[i]t was incumbent upon [the] plaintiff to conduct

further investigation after being placed on notice of any alleged impediments"

prior to the marriage. Id. at 411.

The facts in Patel are similar to the facts in this matter. Here, plaintiff

identified multiple "red flags" regarding his marriage to defendant prior to their

A-3448-23 12 engagement, during their engagement, before their civil ceremony, and before

their religious ceremony. Plaintiff had ample opportunity to investigate the

various "red flags." However, plaintiff elected not to investigate or take any

action with respect to the "red flags," and proceeded to marry defendant twice.

Plaintiff's reliance on Faustin v. Lewis, 85 N.J. 507 (1981), is misplaced.

In that case, the plaintiff and the defendant knowingly agreed to marry for the

sole purpose of rendering the plaintiff eligible for permanent residence status in

the United States. Id. at 509. Apparently, the defendant married other Haitian

citizens for a fee to obtain permanent residence in the United States. Ibid.2

Because both parties participated in the fraudulent marriage in Faustin, our

Supreme Court relied on the "lack of mutual assent to the marital relationship"

to sustain the annulment under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-1(d). Id. at 510.

In Faustin, the Court found "neither of the parties intended to marry, nor

did they thereafter enter into any kind of marital relationship with each other."

Ibid. Therefore, the Court stated that if the plaintiff's allegations were proven,

she could "establish a ground for judgment of nullity of her marriage." Id. at

2 A federal grand jury indicted the defendant on criminal charges for "unlawfully assisting Haitian aliens to fraudulently obtain permanent residence in the United States in violation of the immigration and naturalization laws." Ibid. A-3448-23 13 510-11. The issue before the Court in Faustin was "whether [the plaintiff]

should be barred from judicial relief because of her participation in a sham

marriage."

The facts before this court are distinguishable. In his verified complaint,

plaintiff specifically alleged "fraud as to the essentials of the marriage," rather

than lack of mutual assent to the marriage under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-1(d). Even if

we agreed plaintiff asserted a claim for annulment based on lack of mutual assent

to the marital relationship, which we do not, the testimony proffered on

plaintiff's behalf demonstrated the parties intended to marry. Moreover, Bekka,

the friend who spent time visiting with plaintiff and defendant in Canada and

the United States, testified the pair displayed behaviors indicative of a newly

married couple.

We also reject plaintiff's argument that the failure to consummate the

marriage warranted an annulment. Failure to consummate the marriage is not

an independent ground for an annulment under N.J.S.A. 2:34-1.

Whether or not plaintiff consummated the marriage, he nonetheless

ratified the marriage, rendering N.J.S.A. 2A:34-1(d) inapplicable. Once a party

to a fraudulently induced marriage discovers the fraud or learns facts from which

knowledge of the fraud may be imputed, the party affirms or ratifies the marriage

A-3448-23 14 by voluntarily continuing to cohabitate "with full knowledge of the invalidating

facts." Avakian v. Avakian, 69 N.J. Eq. 89, 112 (Ch. 1905). See also Fromm

v. Huhn, 95 N.J. Eq. 728, 730 (1924) (finding husband ratified the marriage after

learning wife had a secret living husband but "continued to live with her as her

husband").

Here, after plaintiff identified "red flags" evidencing defendant's

purported fraud, he ratified the marriage. Not only did plaintiff remain in the

marriage, but he continued to live with defendant and held himself out as

defendant's husband until the couple separated in September 2022.

Having reviewed the record, plaintiff failed to prove "fraud as to the

essentials of marriage," N.J.S.A. 2A:34-1(d), to warrant annulment of the

marriage. The case law is clear, a bad bargain under a marriage contract is

insufficient as a matter of law to dissolve a marriage whether consummated or

not. Woodward, 97 N.J. Eq. at 258. A mistake in marrying an individual who

may misrepresent their "character, fortune, health, and the like" does not nullify

a marriage. Rhoades, 10 N.J. Super. at 438. We are satisfied plaintiff's proofs,

at best, demonstrated disappointment in discovering he did not marry a person

possessing similar character, custom, and belief, which is insufficient to sustain

a cause of action for annulment.

A-3448-23 15 Affirmed.

A-3448-23 16