SUSHILA VIRESH CHHADVA Vs. VIRESH NAGSHI CHHADVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner-wife, has taken exception to an order passed by the Family Court , Bombay, rejecting the petitioners application for interim alimony and expenses of the litigation.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts leading to this petition are : the petitioner and the respondent got married on February 6, 1991 at Bombay according to Hindu Vedic Rites. Shortly after the marriage, the petitioner was operated for mahor ovarian tumour and her right ovary was removed. The respondent thereafter filed a petition in the Family Court for a decree of nullity of marriage. The respondent alleged that the parties stayed together just for one day after the marriage and then the petitioner started complaining about severe pains in her stomach thereafter. The respondent contended that the tumour was malignant and the petitioners left ovary is affected by cancer and that there is no chance of her conception and bearing a child. According to the respondent, the petitioner and her parents were well aware of this tumour, which was of a big size, and they intentionally concealed this fact from the petitioner and his family members to get her married. The respondent alleged that the tumour was very big and she was operated within eight days from the marriage, which goes to show that the operation and the removal of the tumour was urgently required. There was no possibility, according to the respondent, of the tumour of such a big size being developed after marriage within eight days. The respondent contended that the petitioner was already undergoing the treatment for the same and this fact was deliberately concealed from him.

(3.) THE petitioner appeared in the Family Court in pursuance of the summons issued to her. She took out Interim Application No. 802 of 1993 for interim alimony at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per month and expenses of the litigation. The application was opposed by the respondent mainly on the ground that the marriage was clearly void. It is contended that in view of the deception practised by the petitioner, she is not entitled to interim alimony.