JOMON Vs. MERCY JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Ss. 18 and 19 of the Indian divorce Act. Petitioner is the husband and respondent is the wife. They belong to Christian community. Their marriage was solemnized on 28. 5. 95 at St. Forane Church, Vazhakulam. It was an arranged marriage. The petitioner and the respondent lived together at the petitioner's house at Kumaraka m. Two months after the date of marriage, the respondent complained pain on her abdomen and hence she was taken to Carithas hospital for medical examination. On examination it was revealed that the respondent was pregnant. The medical officer informed that she is having an abnormal growth in her uterus. The doctor advised her to get a scanning report. After scanning is done she met the doctor alone. She told the petitioner's mother that the child is having abnormal weight and there is no complication. Thereafter, the respondent did not go for medical check-up. The respondent again complained pain. So she was taken to primary health centre and from there she was referred to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam on 12. 11. 1995. The respondent gave birth toa full grown child on 12. 11. 1995, ie. ,168 days after the date of marriage. After delivery she was taken to her house by her parents. It is alleged that when the petitioner asked about it, she confessed the factum of pregnancy, on the date of marriage. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this original Petition for a decree declaring that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is null and void. The respondent on receiving summons did not turn up and hence she was declared ex parte. The petitioner was examined as PW. 1. He has deposed to the averments in the petition. According to him, at the time of marriage she was pregnant and hence he is entitled to get a decree that the marriage is a nullity. He has deposed that the respondent gave birth to a full grown child on 12. 11. 95, ie. ,168 days after the date of marriage. His testimony stands unchallenged. S. 18 of the Indian Divorce Act states that any husband or wife may present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court, praying that his or her marriage may be declared null and void on the ground that his consent for the marriage was obtained by fraud. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri M. J. Thomas submitted that the petitioner's consent was obtained by fraud and if he was aware that the respondent was pregnant by some other person at the time of marriage, she would not have given his consent. The petitioner has proved that at the time of marriage, she was pregnant through another person. He has approached the ecclesiastical court and obtained a decree of divorce. THIS decree has no legal validity. The petitioner has deposed that at the time when he met the respondent, the impression he received from her people was that the respondent was leading a moral life and that she is a virgin and because of that he had given his consent for the marriage. The fact that she was pregnant at the time of marriage was wilfully suppressed from the petitioner. THIS amounts to fraud. The respondent is bound to disclose the factum of her pregnancy to the petitioner as no sober person will give his consent to marry a pregnant woman. As the petitioner's consent was obtained by wilfully suppressing the factum of her pregnancy, it amounts to fraud. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get a decree declaring that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent is a nullity. In the result, the Original Petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent which was solemnized on 28. 5. 95 is declared null and void. . .