V. RAJA Vs. BHUVANESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal arises out of an order dated 7.5.1997 declining to annul the marriage on the ground of fraud.

(2.) The appellant, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, preferred a petition for declaring the marriage, with the respondent, as void under Sec. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, inter alia contending that the consent of the petitioner was obtained by fraud, as to a material fact concerning the respondent. Petitioner averred that he was married on 6.12.1992 and within a week of marriage, i.e. somewhere in Dec. 1992, January 1993 respondent complained of pain in stomach during her menstruation period. The pain repeated at the time of her second menstruation period. The respondent underwent various pathological and scanning tests etc. She was examined by a specialist. Medicines were prescribed. The Doctors are said to have disclosed that the respondent suffered from discharge of proteins. Petitioner took the respondent for treatment on number of times. Some times she was taken for treatment by her parents. It is averred that respondent's mother took the second opinion about the illness and it was discovered that the respondent was suffering from nephritis. Treatment for the same was advised. Petitioner averred about the knowledge of respondent of the disease two years prior to her marriage and her non-disclosure of it. Though the petitioner was advised not to marry before her marriage with petitioner, petitioner felt, he was cheated by the respondent and her parents. There is no dispute that the marriage was an arranged marriage and it subsisted upto Nov., 1994.

(3.) The allegations were refuted. Undergoing medical treatment for pain and swelling at the time of menstruation period was admitted. The petitioner examined himself as the witness and relied on a medical discharge certificate. The petitioner in his statement stated that the Doctors advised the respondent not to conceive. The respondent appeared as her own witness and denied the allegations. It was denied that she was suffering from ailment of kidney prior to the marriage. It was claimed that even now the petitioner is a normal person and is capable of leading a normal matrimonial life. Neither any facts and circumstances were kept back from the petitioner, which would interfere with the ordinary matrimonial life of the petitioner and the respondent nor any facts which amounted to obtaining consent by fraud for marriage were suppressed. Petition is claimed to be barred by limitation as having been filed after a lapse of more than one year after consummation of the marriage.