An Australian judge has annulled the marriage of a Melbourne couple after the bride testified that she participated in the wedding ceremony under the impression that it was merely a social media prank.

According to documents from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the woman, in her 20s, met the man, in his 30s, on a dating app in September 2023. They met in person the next day and began dating. Their identities remain protected due to Australian family law proceedings.

The woman told the court that they planned a trip to Sydney for December, and the man proposed to her in late December, which she accepted. Just two days later, they had a wedding ceremony in Sydney—but the bride believed it was all staged. She recounted that the groom had invited her to a "white party," instructing her to wear a white dress. Since they had previously attended a similar event in Queensland, she suspected nothing unusual. She also emphasized that her attire was not a wedding dress.

Upon arriving at the venue, she noticed no other guests dressed in white. When she questioned the groom, he allegedly told her that the event was a prank wedding for his Instagram content, aimed at boosting engagement and monetizing his account. The man, who denied being a social media influencer, admitted to having over 17,000 Instagram followers.

The woman stated that she assumed marriages were only legally binding if conducted in a court and called a friend for advice. Her friend reassured her that a legal marriage required filing a notice of intent, so she proceeded with the ceremony, believing it was purely for entertainment. She played along, thinking the groom chose her for the video to prevent her from feeling jealous.

Court documents revealed that none of the bride’s family or friends were present—only a photographer and the photographer’s friend attended. The woman later discovered in February 2024 that the marriage was legally valid and that the groom had arranged it to secure residency in Australia. She, as a healthcare professional, had a streamlined process for permanent residency, and the groom asked to be listed as her dependent—something she assumed was impossible since she believed they were not actually married.

The groom insisted that their relationship was genuine, claiming they had lived together before their engagement—an assertion the bride denied. Court documents also revealed that a notice of intended marriage was filed in November 2023, a month before the proposal, but the bride denied any knowledge of it.

In his ruling, Justice Joshua Wilson found it implausible that a couple would get engaged in late December and marry just two days later. While acknowledging that impulsive marriages can happen, he noted that a wedding celebrant had been arranged more than a month before the proposal. Additionally, given the woman's religious background, the judge found it puzzling that she would agree to a civil ceremony rather than a church wedding.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the bride had participated in the ceremony under the false belief that it was a staged social media event and declared the marriage legally invalid.