A Melbourne couple’s marriage has been annulled after the bride told a court she had thought their wedding was nothing more than a social media stunt to boost his Instagram following.
In an October family court judgment published on Thursday, a judge annulled the December 2023 marriage after finding the bride “believed she was acting in a social media event”, rather than in a legally binding wedding ceremony.
The bride, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had told the court that she met the groom on a dating app in September 2023 and met the following day at a church.
At the time, she was in her mid 20s and he was in his late 30s.
For the next three months, they remained in contact, before she said the groom invited her to a “white party” in Sydney in December, the court heard. She said after arriving at the venue she was “shocked” to learn the man had “organised a wedding”.
The bride said she became uncomfortable and wanted to leave, but the groom told 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.
“He told me that he’s organising a prank wedding for his social media. To be precise, Instagram, because he wants to boost his content and wants to start monetising his Instagram page.”
In court, footage of the ceremony was played, showing the couple exchanging vows and rings.
While the bride appeared to “enthusiastically” participate in the ceremony, she told the court it was “all an act”.
“We had to act to make it look real,” she said.
She said she only discovered the “sham” wedding was legal after he asked her to add his name to her application for permanent residency. She said the groom told her he was not a permanent resident and he had “organised the marriage to help him”.
She said she was “furious” she had been “lied [to] from the beginning”.
The bride said she would not get married without her parent’s permission and presence, nor without a bridal gown or a reception party.
But the groom – who has 17,000 followers on Instagram but denied he was a social media influencer – disputed her version of events.
He testified that immediately after they met, he had told her he was bisexual, and that she was “cool with it” and moved into his home.
The groom told the court he had proposed to her a day before the wedding.
The bride did not include the proposal in her affidavit, but did not deny it in court.
However, he could not explain why the wedding had to occur so soon after the proposal or why they were married in Sydney instead of Melbourne.
The court also heard he had signed a notice intention to marriage on 20 November, weeks before the proposal.
He said the wedding was intended to be “intimate” before an “official” wedding ceremony in their home country at a later date and they “both agreed to these circumstances”.
However, the judge said the assertion was “so bereft of detail as to be near meaningless”.
He also rejected the groom’s claim they had moved in together, finding instead the couple had maintained separate residences.
The judge said it “beggars belief” the bride would marry the groom “less than two days” after accepting his proposal.
“The applicant did not have a single family member or friend present at the alleged wedding ceremony. She was religious,” he wrote.
“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.”
