SUJATHA Vs. C D HARIHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the respondent is against the order passed in O.P. No.425 of 1991, on the file of the Principal Family Court, Madras.

(2.) THE petition was filed under Sec.l2(l)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, for a declaration that the marriage between the parties that took place on 10.3.1991 at Madras is null and void.

(3.) THE material facts of the case are as follows: THE marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 10.3.1991 at Madras. Prior to the marriage, on 30.11.1990, the petitioner's parents visited the bride's house to see the girl. It is alleged that the respondent's father cleverly and cunningly stage-managed every minute of their presence in such a way that the actual seeing of the girl was restricted to less than a minute. It is further alleged that the respondent's father never allowed the petitioner or his parents to think and react, and, under such conditions, he and his family felt that the negotiations for marriage could go on favourably. In fact, according to the petitioner, the respondent's father voluntarily cut off the electricity supply on the same date., i.e., on 30.11.1990 with some evil motive. It is also further alleged that the petitioner's relatives were also permitted to see the girl for a few seconds, that too, at the time of power cut. Thus, the petitioner's approval for the marriage was that of a dutiful son to the parents. It is said that because the relatives of the respondent were nice people, innocent and unexposed, he never expected that a fraud will be committed in getting the consent. Even though he saw the girl on 30.11.1990, after negotiations the betrothal took place on 12.12.1990. It is alleged that the respondent is having incurable eye defects, and this fact was suppressed at the time of betrothal. It is said that it was the duty of the respondent's father to have made specific mention of the real conditions of his daughter and sought for acceptance of the girl. After marriage, the petitioner understood the real conditions of his wife. According to him, the respondent could act only under specific instructions given by her father. She had no self-decision, no self-action and no dynamism, and she was not a girl of normal type. Even she could not wear her saree rightly. So, to diagnose her ailment, she was taken to an eye specialist where it was found that the respondent was suffering from high power of eye defects, i.e., minus 15 and minus 16. THE doctor was of the opinion that the defects in the eyes was almost to a blind stage, and that it was a serious affair. According to the petitioner the said defect in the eyes is a material fact and that it has not been disclosed at or before the marriage. It is further stated that the wife told him later on that she was instructed by her father and her family members that she should manage this by hiding the facts somehow or other. It is also stated that certain acts of the wife compelled him to take her to a psychiatrist, where it was found that she could not do a normal duty as a wife and it was also suggested that she is unable to form the marital obligations. It is stated that even after the marriage, in spite of repeated requests, the wife did not reveal anything about her eye disease and also about the wearing of contact lense. Letters were written to her father, but they were not replied. THE only explanation offered by the father-in-law was that wearing contact lense was a fashion nowadays and that it is not a material defect. He, therefore, says that there was no proper consent obtained from him for the marriage, and consequently prays for a declaration that the marriage is null and void.