A couple in Melbourne has had their marriage annulled after the bride said she believed their wedding was a "prank" to boost the groom's social media following.
According to a family court judgment obtained by 1News, the bride was in her mid-20s when she met the groom, who was in his late 30s, on a dating app in September 2023.
The pair had been in contact for three months when the woman was invited to a "white party" in Sydney in December, the court was told.
When she arrived at the venue, she was "shocked" to learn she was attending their wedding.
The bride said she wanted to leave but the groom convinced her to stay — telling her it was "a simple prank".
"When I got there, and I didn’t see anybody in white, I asked him, 'What’s happening?'" she told the court.
The bride said he replied he was "organising a prank wedding" for his Instagram to "boost his content" and monetise the page.
Footage of their wedding was played in court, where the bride appeared to be an enthusiastic participant. However, the bride said it was "all an act".
She learned their "sham" wedding was legally binding after he "pleaded" to have his name added to her permanent residency application.
The groom – who denied being a social media influencer – disputed her claims, saying that he had proposed with a ring the day before the wedding.
He further claimed that the "intimate ceremony in Sydney" wedding would be followed up with an "official" wedding in their home country, and that the bride had "agreed to these circumstances".
However, the groom was unable to explain the reason for the short engagement before their wedding or why it took place in Sydney rather than Melbourne.
The court also heard he had signed a notice of intended marriage on November 20 – several weeks before the proposal.
In the October judgment, released today, the judge said that the groom's claims were "so bereft of detail as to be near meaningless".
"To most people, marriage is one of the most significant events in his or her life and the details associated with the marriage with its long-term consequences are of critical importance," he wrote.
He said it "beggars belief that a couple would become engaged in late December then married two days later".
"It is more probable than not that the applicant believed she was acting in a social media event on the day of the alleged ceremony, rather than freely participating at a legally sanctioned wedding ceremony."
The judge further added that he found it "impossible to accept" that the bride would have a wedding ceremony without a single friend or family member present.
"She was religious. Precisely why she would participate in a civil marriage and not in a church marriage ceremony went unexplored. It made no sense to me that she would."
The judge annulled the marriage.
SHARE ME