In re Pavitra Rishta Match Making LLP (CCPA Delhi)
Summary: The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), exercising its statutory mandate under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, considered allegations concerning the fee structure adopted by Pavitra Rishta Match Making LLP for its matrimonial and matchmaking services. The proceedings originated from a complaint received from Shri Gagan Gandhi dated 31 March 2022.
The complaint alleged that the marriage bureau charged professional fees as a percentage of total marriage expenses, thereby potentially excluding persons without predetermined marriage budgets or those interested in court marriages. It was also alleged that there was insufficient clarity regarding the charges where actual marriage expenses were lower than estimated expenses, and that the fee model encouraged higher marriage expenditure and constituted an unfair trade practice.
During the preliminary inquiry, the CCPA noted that the Opposite Party’s website disclosed professional charges under its terms and conditions. These included 0.11% at registration, 1% towards mediation services in two instalments, 0.50% after the Roka ceremony and 0.50% ten days before the marriage ceremony. The charges were stated to be calculated on total marriage expenses, with GST separately chargeable. The preliminary inquiry raised concerns regarding the transparency of the methodology for determining total marriage expenses before identification or finalisation of a matrimonial match.
A notice dated 16 June 2022 was consequently issued seeking details concerning the fee structure, basis for calculating marriage expenses, fee-collection timelines and incidental or ancillary charges. In its response dated 1 July 2022, the Opposite Party stated that its services included preparation of client biodatas, profile matching, fixing meetings and assistance through the matrimonial process. It explained that estimated marriage expenditure was provided by clients at the initial stage and that the percentage-based charges were calculated with reference to factors such as venue, number of invitees, functions, vendors and food and beverage costs.
The Opposite Party also contended that its percentage-based charges were comparatively lower than charges imposed by other matrimonial service providers. It gave an example of a marriage budget of ₹10 lakh resulting in total commission of ₹11,100 and contrasted this with charges allegedly imposed by another matrimonial service provider.
The CCPA noted that annexures referred to in the Opposite Party’s reply had not been received. Despite reminders issued between February 2024 and January 2026, the annexures were not furnished. The matter was thereafter forwarded to the Director General (Investigation), CCPA, on 20 January 2026. The Investigation Wing sought documentary evidence in April 2026, but the Opposite Party did not furnish the requisite material.
The investigation report dated 6 May 2026 recorded, among other things, that the Opposite Party levied fees as a percentage of purported total marriage expenses; that the fee structure was not prominently displayed in consumer-facing sections of the website and was instead embedded in the terms and conditions; that the absence of a clear verification mechanism created scope for misreporting of expenses; and that linking initial charges to speculative future marriage expenditure could create confusion concerning the true cost of services.
The investigation report was shared with the Opposite Party, which was given an opportunity to submit comments and was also heard. The Opposite Party contended that the complainant was not its consumer or client, that its pricing structure was communicated in advance through discussions and other communications, and that its model was customised according to the requirements of individual clients. It further stated that estimated marriage expenditure was only an indicative benchmark and was not a concealed or mathematically fixed computation.
During the hearing, the Opposite Party maintained that it had been providing matrimonial and matchmaking services since 2006 and catered to clients in India and internationally. It submitted that its services included personalised matrimonial assistance, compatibility coordination, profile assessment, family interaction facilitation, matrimonial introductions, counselling support and mediation assistance. It also contended that there was no material establishing concealment of charges, false representation, fraudulent inducement, fake services, fabricated profiles, dishonest conduct, coercive recovery practices or deliberate deception.
The CCPA considered the statutory framework governing misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices. Section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines “misleading advertisement” in relation to a product or service, including advertisements that falsely describe a product or service, give a false guarantee or are likely to mislead consumers regarding its nature, substance, quantity or quality, convey representations amounting to an unfair trade practice, or deliberately conceal important information. Section 2(47) defines “unfair trade practice” and covers unfair or deceptive practices adopted for promoting the sale, use or supply of goods or provision of services.
The CCPA observed that advertisements should contain truthful and honest representations, should not indulge in unfair trade practices or false representations and should disclose important information clearly, prominently and in a manner that enables consumers to make informed choices.
However, upon considering the material on record, including the Opposite Party’s reply, investigation reports and documents, the CCPA observed that the fee structure had in fact been disclosed, including the upfront percentage of fees applicable at various stages. The issue, according to the CCPA, essentially concerned the reasonableness or quantum of the fees and whether they were commensurate with the nature and extent of services rendered. The Authority observed that determination and fixation of the price of goods or services ordinarily falls within the commercial domain of the service provider, subject to the applicable statutory and regulatory framework.
The CCPA therefore found that the customised or percentage-linked nature of the fee structure did not, by itself, make the pricing structure misleading, arbitrary or unlawful where the applicable fee structure had been disclosed to and voluntarily accepted by consumers before they availed the services. The material on record also did not establish that the parameters relating to anticipated matrimonial arrangements were arbitrarily or unilaterally imposed.
Ultimately, the CCPA held that, in the absence of material establishing concealment of material information, unfair trade practice, false or misleading representation or other conduct falling within its statutory remit, the allegations examined in the matter did not disclose a contravention warranting regulatory intervention. The proceedings could not be sustained merely on assumptions or objections concerning the commercial reasonableness of the fee structure. The allegations of unfair trade practice were therefore not established and no further action was considered necessary against the Opposite Party.
At the same time, the CCPA issued directions requiring the Opposite Party to prominently and clearly disclose upfront on its website the complete pricing structure applicable to its services, in a manner readily accessible to consumers before they avail the services. It was also directed to ensure that information necessary for consumers to make informed decisions is disclosed clearly and readily. The Opposite Party was directed to submit a compliance report to the CCPA within 15 days from the date of the Order.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CENTRAL CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY
1. The Central Consumer Protection Authority (hereinafter referred to as CCPA) has been established under section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 to regulate matters relating to violation of rights of consumer, unfair trade practices, false and misleading advertisement which are prejudicial to the interest of public and consumers and to promote, protect and enforce the rights of consumer as a class.
2. The Central Consumer Protection Authority {(CCPA), in exercise of its statutory mandate under Section 18(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred as Act), is entrusted with the function of preventing unfair trade practices and ensuring that no false or misleading advertisement is made in respect of any goods or services, and further to ensure that no advertisement of goods or services is issued in contravention of the provisions of the said Act or the rules and regulations framed thereunder
3. In furtherance of the aforesaid mandate, the CCPA took cognizance based on complaint received from Shri Gagan Gandhi vide letter dated 31.03.2022 in respect of the matrimony bureau Pavitra Rishta Match Making LLP (hereinafter referred as opposite party), wherein, following allegations had been made:
3.1. That the aforesaid marriage bureau is charging a fee on percentage basis on the total marriage expenses for their services thereby depriving the prospective clients of their services who do not have pre-decided marriage expenses and or are interested in court marriage.
3.2. That there is an absence of clarity with respect to the quantum of service charges in cases where the actual marriage expenses incurred are lower than the estimated expenses disclosed at the time of registration.
3.3. That the business, with such a fee structure, by default caters to only those who are willing fo spend more on marriage, providing hetter service and facilities. Thus, encouraging high marriage expenses and is unfair trade practice.
3.4. That, in India, the marriage expenses are borne by the bride’s family and the consequences are female foeticide and other such anti women social evils. Marriage expenses have grown over the year – even for the groom ‘s family – because expensive marriages are status building exercises
4. Accordingly, a preliminary inquiry of the issue was undertaken, wherein it was observed that the fee structure as published on the website of Opposite Party was after 3-4 steps under the “Terms and Conditions” section which is reproduced herein below:
4.1. Professional Charges:
a. At the time of registration: 0.11% (non-refundable),
b. Towards mediation services: 1% {payable in two instilments),
c. After the Roka ceremony: 0.50%
d. Ten (10) days prior to the marriage ceremony: 0.50%
4.2. It was further stipulated that all the aforesaid charges, expressed in percentage terms, are to be calculated on the basis of the total expenses incurred in connection with the marriage, with Goods and Services Tax (GST) to be levied separately. It is also specified that the registration charges shall remain valid for a period of one year from the date of realization of payment or activation of the consumer’s profile, whichever is later.
In the preliminary inquiry it was observed that the methodology or basis for computation of the “total marriage expenses’ prior to the identification or finalization of a matrimonial match indicated that the fee structure was not transparent and consumers might not be able to assess the total/final charges for the services offered by the Opposite Party.
5. Considering the above observations of the preliminary inquiry, a Notice dated 16.06.2022 was issued to the Opposite Party to submit details inter-alia fee structure, basis of calculating marriage expenses, timeline of collecting the fees and all other incidental and ancillary charges collected along with supporting documents, if any.
6. In response to the above Notice, the Opposite Party vide email dated 01.07.2022 submitted that:
6.1. The Opposite Party’s role is to make bio-data of our clients, match profiles, and fix meetings with appropriate candidates as per their requirement. The commitment encompasses the entire journey from search of the perfect soul companion to the conclusion of the matrimony event.
6.2 The charging fees on the basis of percentage calculated on the total marriage expense is an appropriate way of dealing with clients. As far as charging for registration fees {0.11%) for one year on the basis of total marriage expenditure is conceded, it is charged by way of an estimated expenditure amount since all clients provide us with their estimated budgets in the initial stages before registration excluding jewellery, gifts and other items which they wish to give to the families.
6.3.The mediation fees charged in two parts, firstly after the rake ceremony (0.50%) and the remaining fee 10 days before marriage (0.50%) is also calculated as per the estimated total expense of marriage. The estimated expense can be figured out keeping in mind various factors like the venue (small or big banquet halls, small or big hotels/resorts, local or destination weddings), number of people invited, number of functions, amounts charged by various vendors (decoration and entertainment), per plate cost of F & B etc.
6.4. The Opposite Party stated that it is correct that the professional charges in percentage are charged and calculated on the total expenses of the marriage. However, it is important to note that most of the companies providing such matrimonial services have a discriminatory way of charging their clients as they are charged on the basis of their caste and social status in the society which is contradictory to the principles of our Company.
For example: The budget of marriage is fixed at 10 lakhs then our total commission would Rs. 11,100/~ (Rs. Eleven thousand eleven hundred only/-) which is much cheaper then the amount which is charged by other vendors. Elite matrimony charges minimum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. One lakh fifty thousand only/-) and goes upto Rs. 12 50,000/-(Rs. Twelve lakh fifty thousand only/-). This. amount is irrespective of the amount spent of the marriage. Whereas Opposite Party charge a meagre amount of Rs. Rs. 11,100/~ {(Rs. Eleven thousand eleven hundred only/-) for a marriage budget of Rs. 10 lakhs. Therefore it would be abundantly clear that we are not engaged in any unfair fade practices.
7. The reply submitted by the Opposite Party was examined by the CCPA and it was noted that annexure as stated in the aforesaid reply has not been received in CCPA. Therefore, several reminders vide email dated 26.02.2024, 30.08.2024, 04.09.2024, 18.10.2024, 29.10.2025, and 08.01.2026 were issued to the Opposite Party to provide the annexures as mentioned in their reply. However, despite several reminders, it failed to submit annexures.
8. Thereafter, CCPA, vide letter dated 20.01.2026 CCPA forwarded the matter to DG {Investigation) CCPA for detailed investigation.
9. The Investigation Wing of the CCPA, vide emails dated 15.04.2026 and 23.04.2026, called upon the Opposite Party to furnish copies of all relevant documentary evidence in connection with the ongoing proceedings. However, the Opposite Party failed to furnish any response or submit the requisite documentary evidence in respect thereof.
10. The investigation report dated 06.05.2026 was received from DG (Investigation) CCPA wherein based on the available information with the Investigation Wing, following findings were submitted:
10.1. That the Opposite Party levied fees as a percentage of the total expenses purportedly incurred on the marriage, with GST charged additionally.
10.2. It was further noted that such fee structure is not prominently disclosed under clear and consumer-facing sections such as “Our Packages” on the website but is instead embedded within the terms and conditions. This reduces visibility and accessibility for an average consumer and results in inadequate and non- transparent disclosure of pricing information.
10.3. Additionally, in the absence of any clear verification mechanism, there is scope for misreporting of expenses by consumers. A consumer may understate the anticipated expenditure, intentionally or otherwise, raising conches regarding how the company calculates and enforces its fee collection.
10.4. While the company may adopt a model of fixed registration charges followed by variable fees, the current practice of linking even the initial charges to speculative future expenses is misleading and creates confusion regarding the true cost of services.
10.5. The manner in which the fee structure is presented creates a false and misleading impression regarding the nature and quantum of charges payable for its services.
11. In view of the findings in the DG (Investigation} Report, CCPA vide letter dated 25.05.2026 shared the investigation report with the opposite party to furnish their comments by 03.06.2026. Thereafter, an opportunity of hearing was also provided on 05.06.20286.
12. Vide email dated 03.06.2028, Shri Vansh Gangotra, Ld. Counsel of the Opposite Party submitted the following response:
12.1. That the present proceedings arise from a complaint instituted by a third party who is admittedly neither a consumer nor a client of the Respondent and who has never availed any matrimonial or matchmaking services from the Opposite Party.
12.2. That all pricing structures, registration fees, mediation fees, and service-related commercial terms were communicated to prospective clients in advance through discussions, WhatsApp communications, email correspondence, telephonic conversations, onboarding consultations, and other written and verbal interactions before commencement of services.
12.3. The pricing mechanism formed part of a customized matrimonial facilitation model depending upon the nature, scale, expectations, and extent of personalized matchmaking services sought by individua! clients. All engagements between the Opposite Party and its clients were voluntary and contractual in nature.
12.4. It is further submitted that the reference to the term estimated marriage expenditure was utilized merely as a broad indicative benchmark during discussions with prospective clients and was never represented as a rigid, concealed, or mathematically fixed computation.
13. During the hearing held on 05.06.2026, Shri Sunil Kejriwal, Partner, Ld. Counsels Shri Vansh Gandotra, Shri Madhuresh Chaudhary, Kartik Gandotra, Shri Naman Sabarwal and MD Faizan Ansari appeared on behalf of the opposite party and submitted the following:
13.1. That the Opposite Party is a bona fide and long-standing matrimonial and matchmaking service provider operating since the year 2006 and catering to clients across India and internationally, including NR is and persons from diverse communities, religions, linguistic groups, and cultural backgrounds.
13.2. The services rendered by include personalized matrimonial assistance, compatibility coordination, profile assessment, family interaction facilitation, matrimonial introductions, counselling support, mediation assistance, and end- to-end matchmaking services depending upcn the specific requirements of individual clients.
13.3. All pricing structures, registration fees, mediation fees, and service-related commercial terms were communicated to prospective clients in advance of availing the services.
13.4. The Respondent respectfully submits that no material whatsoever has been produced establishing concealment of charges, false representation, fraudulent inducement, fake services, fabricated profiles, dishonest conduct, coercive recovery practices, or deliberate deception on the part of the Opposite Party.
14. The Central Authority, after careful consideration of the submissions observes that —
14.1. Section- 2(28} of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 defines “misleading advertisement” in relation to any product or service to mean an advertisement:
i) falsely describes such product or service; or
ii) gives a false guarantee 1o, or is likely to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product or service; or
iii) conveys an express or implied representation which, if made by the manufacturer or seller or service provider thereof, would constitute an unfair practice; or
iv) deliberately conceals important information;
14.2. Under Section 2 {47) of the Act ‘unfair trade practice’ refers to the practice when far the objective of promoting the use or supply of any service, any person, adopts unfair or deceptive practice inter-alia any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation including by means of electronic record which representation that the goods services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have.
15. From a bare reading of the above provisions of the Act, it is clear that any advertisement should:
i. contain truthful & honest representation of facts,
ii. Not indulge in unfair Trade practice as defined in Section 2{47) of the Act. It should be free from false representation that the goods/services are of particular standard, approval, performance or benefits [{Section 2{47) (d)] and should not make false or misleading representation conceding the need for or usefulness of any goods or services of Consumer Protection Act with respect to unfair trade practice.
iii. Disclose important information in such a manner that they are clear, prominent and extremely hard to miss for viewers/consumers so as to not conceal important information.
iv. The underlying object of consumer protection legislation is to empower consumers by ensuring access to complete, accurate, and transparent information, thereby enabling them to make informed choices.
16. Upon consideration of the material available on record, including the reply famished by the Opposite Party, the investigation reports and the documents annexed thereto, the CCPA observes that the Opposite Party has disclosed the fee structure applicable to the services offered by it, including the upfront percentage of fees that may be charged at various levels from a consumer upon availing such services. The issue arising for complaint, therefore, essentially pertains to the reasonableness or quantum of such fees and whether the same are commensurate with the nature and extent of services rendered by the Opposite Party. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that, ordinarily, the determination and fixation of the price of goods or services falls within the commercial domain of the service provider, subject to compliance with the applicable statutory and regulatory framework.
17. The CCPA, under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is entrusted to regulate matters relating to violation of the rights of consumers, unfair trade practices and false or misleading advertisements which are prejudicial to the interests of consumers and the public at large, and of promoting, protecting and enforcing the rights of consumers as a class. The jurisdiction and mandate of the CCPA are required to be exercised within the statutory framework and. on the basis of material demonstrating a violation falling within the ambit of the Act, Upon examination of the material placed on record, the CCPA finds that:
17.1. The Opposite Party provides personalized matrimonial facilitation and matchmaking services based upon the preferences, requirements and expectations of its clients.
17.2. The mere fact that the fee structure is customised or linked to a percentage parameter does not, in itself, render such pricing structure misleading, arbitrary or unlawful, particularly where the applicable fee structure has been disclosed to, and voluntarily accepted by, the consumers prior to their availing of the services.
17.3. The understanding regarding the anticipated scale and nature of matrimonial arrangements is arrived at individually with the consumers, having regard to their respective preferences, requirements and expectations, and the material on record does not establish that such parameters were arbitrarily or unilaterally imposed by the Opposite Party.
17.4. In the absence of material establishing concealment of material information, unfair trade practice, false or misleading representation, or any other conduct falling within the statutory remit of the CCPA, the allegations in the present matter, to the extent examined, do not disclose a contravention warranting regulatory intervention under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The proceedings, therefore, cannot be sustained merely on the basis of assumptions or objections regarding the commercial reasonableness of the fee structure, in the absence of a specific statutory violation.
Accordingly, upon a cumulative consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CCPA is of the considered view that allegations of unfair trade practice made in the complaint could not be established and hence, no further action is required against the Opposite Party.
16. In view of the nature and extent of the issue, the CCPA hereby issues the following directions to the Opposite Party:
i. The Opposite Party shall prominently and clearly disclose, upfront on its website, the complete pricing structure applicable to the services offered by it, in a manner that is readily accessible to consumers prior to their availing such services.
ii. The Opposite Party shall ensure that all information necessary for enabling consumers to make an informed decision regarding availing of its services is disclosed in a clear, and readily accessible manner.
iii. The opposite party shall submit a compliance report to CCPA on the above directions within 15 days from the date of this Order.
