Man refused to marry after turning 30, later joined a matrimonial site, but interested matches said they were already married; company ordered to pay him Rs 9000

A 44-year-old man from Kerala, who said his marriage had been delayed as he struggled to become financially independent, approached a matrimonial website in the hope of finding a suitable match. He later paid ₹5,800 for a three-month package after initially seeing an advertisement suggesting that the service was free.

The man told the Kasaragod District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that several people showed interest through the platform, but some later told him that they had already got married. He also complained that messages appearing in his chat box could not be opened as expected.

The dispute took another turn when his matrimonial profile was blocked before the paid subscription ended. According to the order, the subscription was supposed to run for 90 days from October 22, 2024, to January 20, 2025. His ID was blocked on December 5, 2024.

Why was his account blocked

M4 Marry.com, operated by Malayala Manorama Ltd, defended the action by saying the man had violated its terms and conditions.

The company told the commission that it had received complaints about derogatory messages allegedly sent by the man to other users. It said a warning had also been issued before his profile was blocked.

During the proceedings, the man admitted that he had sent bad comments to another user. However, he said he did not remember receiving the warning letter and disputed the circumstances surrounding the action taken against him.

The company relied on its terms and conditions, which allowed it to suspend or cancel an account if a user acted against the platform's rules.

What the consumer commission said

The commission did not say that a matrimonial platform had no right to take action against a user for abusive messages. Instead, it focused on how the company had terminated the paid service.

The bench, headed by President Krishnan K with member Beena K G, observed that the company had terminated the service without conducting an enquiry or investigation into the reasons and circumstances behind the alleged messages.

The commission noted that the company had effectively taken the decision itself on whether the words used by the consumer were abusive, without giving him an opportunity to be heard.

It held that abruptly terminating a paid service after accepting money for a fixed period was not sustainable in these circumstances.

The commission further said that once a service is terminated after payment has already been collected, the company should refund the amount relating to the period for which the service could no longer be used.

M4 Marry.com ordered to pay ₹9,000

Jacob had paid ₹5,800 and sought a refund of ₹4,000, which the commission found reasonable for the unused period of his subscription.

The Kasaragod District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission therefore directed M4 Marry.com to refund ₹4,000 to him.

The company was also ordered to pay ₹5,000 towards litigation costs. Together, the amount payable to the consumer comes to ₹9,000.

The commission did not award separate compensation for deficiency in service because the complainant had not specifically sought compensation on that ground.

M4 Marry.com was directed to make the payment within 30 days of receiving the order. If the amount is not paid within that period, it will carry interest at 9% per annum until realisation.

The order was passed on August 29, 2026, in the complaint filed by Manoj Jacob against M4 Marry.com and Malayala Manorama Ltd.