RACHNA ANAND Vs. RAVINDER BHUSHAND ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11-5-1982 passed by the learned Additional District Judge where. by the application of the husband under Sec. 12(i)(c) and Sec. 13(l)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of nullity as well as by a decree of divorce. The respondent-husband filed a petition for annulment of marriage under Sec. 12(1)(c) and for: dissolution of marriage under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was alleged in the petition that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 5th May, 1979 at Delhi according to Hindu rites. The parties lived together as husband and wife at the house of the respondent and out of the wedlock one male child was born on 2-4-1980 at St. Stephens Hospital, Delhi. The said child was named as Vikrant @ Vickey and is living with the appellant. It is further alleged that before the settlement of the marriage between the parties, the respondent had gone to see the appellant and he found that the appellant was abnormally weak in her constitution. The parents of the appellant explained to the respondent and other relations of the respondent that she had been sick for few weeks and was perfectly alright at that time. According to them, the appellant would gain weight very shortly as they would be giving her specified diet etc. Again at the time of solemnisation of the marriage, the respondent did not find any change in the constitutional built of the appellant. The respondent was however consoled by the parents of the appellant that the appellant would gain weight after the solemnisation of the marriage After the solemnisation of the marriage, the respondent provided the appellant the special diet according to his status, but in spite of that the health of the appellant could not improve. The parents of the appellant had been acting examined the appellant from various medical experts before the solemnisation of the marriage and as such they were supposed to know the real cause of her weak physical constitution of her health. During her examination and check up at the time of her pregnancy in Feb., 1980 in the St. Stephen's Hospital, Delhi, the appellant admitted that she was suffering from heart disease since birth and that is why she had all through her life been physically and constitutionally very weak. It is alleged that the appellant and her parents were fully in the knowledge of her disease at the time of the settlement of the marriage and this fact was concealed from the respondent. According to the allegations contained in the petition, the appellant had admitted before the doctors that she had been forbidden from getting marriage on account of heart disease. It was pointed out by the doctors that the appellant had a hole in her heart and as such the heart of the appellant was not in a condition to work property. The doctors also opined that there was a risk to the life of the appellant and the child at the time of delivery. The further allegation in the petition was that the appellant was unable to complete sexual intercourse as she collapses at the very initial stage of the coitus by feeling unbearable pain in her heart due to physical exertion and as such she was unable to complete the same. As a result of which the respondent it is mentally shocked and feels severe discontentment from the appellant. The appellant is also unable to do any house-hold job as due to doing slightest domestic work she gets exhausted At the time of delivery the doctors expected that the blood may have to be given to the appellant and the respondent had volunteered for the same. It is further alleged in the petition that when the appellant was admitted in the St. Stephen's Hospital for delivery she had removed all the ornaments and precious clothes from the matrimonial home to her parents' home. In there circumstances, it has been stated that the nature of the appellant is also irritant and quarrelsome and as such it is not possible for the respondent to live with her.

(2.) The petition was contested by the appellant-wife. In the written statement, the factum of marriage and the birth of the child was admitted but the other allegations of fraud and concealment and cruelty were denied. It was stated that before the settlement of the marriage between the parties, the appellant was shown to the respondent and after seeing the appellant, the respondent had given his free consent for the marriage It is also pleaded that the parties also met at Bangle Sahib and again at her parents' house and also on Thaka day (Shagan day) and the respondents was fully satisfied before the marriage. The parents and other relations of the respondent had also seen the appellant and had given their willingness for the marriage. The mother of the respondent also saw the respondent many times, say 8/10 times before the marriage, She denied that she was abnormally weak in her constitution. She also denied her ailment before marriage or after marriage. She denied that any special diet was given to her by the respondent after her marriage. She pleaded that what to say of special diet she was given stale food and due to this and cruelties committed by the respondent and his mother the health of the appellant started deteriorating. She denied having admitted anything, as alleged, before the doctors in St. Stephen's Hospital She stated that she remained in the hospital for about 20 to 22 days and during this time the respondent and his parents completely neglected her and she was provided with food, milk, diet etc., by her parents. It was stated that the parties had sexual intercourse many times before the delivery and even after the delivery of the child and she never felt breathlessness or weakness. In this situation. there is no question of the respondent being mentally shocked or feeling dis- contentment because the parties had been having sexual intercourse through-out their marital period. It is further stated that on 26-5-1982 she was taken from her parents' house to G. B Pant Hospital for examination. The X-ray report, E.C.G. and harium test were normal. The reports were the same when she was taken to All India Institute of Medical Science on 28-6-1980.

(3.) In the written statement, the lists of articles given to her in dowry were mentioned and it has been stated that all these things remained with the respondent and his mother. According to her the real bone of contention between the parties was that right from the beginning, the respondent and his mother etc. were wanting things like scooter, tape-recorder. The parents of the appellant presented the tape-recorder at a cost of Rs. 2,300.00 but could not afford to give the scooter. The demand for scooter continued and she was being ill-treated for not providing the same. She admitted having lodged a police report in Kingsway Camp Police Station, Delhi, against the respondent for demanding dowry but stated that the report was not false. She denied that she was quarrelsome, hot-heated and or irritent. It is further pleaded that on Rakhi festival of 1979, the mother of the respondent told the appellant to go to her parents' house and bring atleast Rs. 300 because there were six brothers of the appellant and each brother should pay at least Rs. 50.00. This amount of Rs. 300.00 was brough by the appellant. On 15-3-1980, the appellant told her in-laws including the respondent that they should not press her for bringing articles from her parents on which the respondent, his parents and his brother Shri Jagparvesh gave her beating as a result of which she was forced to leave the house of the respondent and went to her parents' house. The respondent often threatened to kill the appellant by sprinkling kerosene oil and putting fire on her. In May, 1980, the respondent came to her parents' house with his mother and father and demanded from her parents for his mother gold' ornaments, clothes etc. worth Rs. 3,000.00. The parents of the appellant with great difficulty gave one gold chain for child six frocks for child and clothes for his parents. A woollen suit for the respondent was also given. In spite of that, the appellant was not maintained properly by the respondent and by his mother and no meals were given to the appellant as also to the child.