SRIKANTARADHYA Vs. KAMALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment and order dated 27-10-1977 made by the Second Addl. Civil Judge, Mysore in M. C. No. 8 of 1975 on his file, dismissing the petition of the husband for annulment of marriage with respondent- 1.

(2.) The husband averred in his petition instituted under S. 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, that he was married with the 1st respondent on 25-4-1974 at Chandrakavadi village, that he went to see the girl along with his friend and his wife, 20 days prior to the marriage and that both himself and his friend found two patches on the cheeks of the girl and on enquiry they learnt that they were patches of good luck which would disappear. They stayed for the night in the house of the bride and next morning the petitioner gave consent for the marriage, approving the girl hereafter the marriage took place on 25-4-1974. After the marriage he took the girt to his place Govinapura village, Kanakapura Taluk and they stayed there together for about four days and then he discovered that there were white patches on her body also and according to the custom the girl was sent back to her parent's place and then the husband informed the parents of the girl that they should get the girl examined by a doctor in Mandya Hospital. Accordingly, the girl was taken to Mandya Hospital for examination and the doctor opined that it was curable form of leprosy. Thereafter the girl was also examined at Leprosorium by the doctor (P. W. 1) who issued a certificate. According to him, the girl was suffering from curable form of leprosy and it was not contagious. Thereafter, he instituted the petition for avoiding marriage before the Civil Judge, Mysore at M. C. No. 8/75 on 10-4-1975. He averred therein specifically that he was not told that the patches on the cheeks of the girl were leprosy patches and on the other hand according to him the father of the girl told that they are good luck patches which would disappear soon. So he averred that his consent for the marriage was taken by fraud. Hence, under S. 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. he sought for annulment of the marriage by a decree of nullity.

(3.) The petition was resisted by the wife as also by respondent 2. They denied that any fraud was played on the petitioner. They denied that the father of the girl misrepresented that the patches were good luck marks on the face. The father in his statement averred that there was a white patch on the right cheek of the girl which soon disappeared and petitioner gave his consent to the marriage even after observing the same. Hence, there was no case of any fraud in obtaining the consent for the marriage. He further averred that the patch was curable and that the patch on the right cheek had disappeared. Hence, respondents 1 and 2 prayed that the petition should be dismissed.