CHINTALAPUDI SATHIRAJU Vs. CHINTALAPUDI LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband, whose petition filed under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for declaration that his marriage with the respondent is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation and consequentially for annulling the marriage by granting a decree of nullity was dismissed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, has preferred this appeal.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the marriage between the appellant herein and the respondent took place on 18-12-1988 as per the Hindu rites and caste custom, the respondent-wife joined the appellant on 8-2-1989, and both of them lived together as husband and wife at Kakinada till 10-6-1989. The contention of the appellant is that when his father accompanied by Maddimsetti Satyanarayana, Chintalapudi Nagaraju, Kasireddi Suryanarayana and his wife, Suryalakshmi, went to the house of the bride in November, 1988, the bride's party misrepresented to the bridegroom's party that the respondent underwent tonsils operation when the tonsils became septic and the lineal scar found on the throat of the bride is the result of minor surgery. It is alleged by the husband that believing that representation, he agreed for the marriage and later on having found Ex. A. 1, medical file, he came to know that the respondent suffered from cancer of thyroid. He urged that he consulted his family doctor and learnt that the wife was suffering from cancer in advanced stage and that the chances of recovery were absolutely nill. On the ground of fraud played upon him, he sought the relief of annulling the marriage.

(3.) THE respondent-wife denied the allegation of fraud and misrepresentation and pleaded in the counter that on Villa Subba Rao of Ramachandrapuram approached her parents on behalf of the appellant's father, that even though her parents informed the said Villa Subba Rao that the respondent was infected with cancer of thyroid and underwent operation and requested for time for fixing the alliance, the said Subba Rao came once again with Maddisetti Satyanarayana and stated the bridegroom's party has agreed for the alliance and insisted that the marriage should be performed urgently. The reason given for expediting the marriage proposal is that the maternal uncle's daughter of the appellant was' refused to be given to him in marriage and, therefore, the bridegroom's family was particular that the marriage of the appellant should be performed before the marriage of the maternal uncle's daughter. The respondent denied the allegation that the appellant had no conjugal relationship with her due to her suffering from pain and sue pleaded that the appellant wanted to discard her on some pretext or the other, so that he can marry again. The learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before him, came to the conclusion that the evidence on record clearly goes to show that the appellant's father was informed about the thyroid gland operation undergone by the respondent prior to the betrothal ceremondy; that even otherwise the appellant must have been aware of the operation undergone by the respondent by 14-4-89, since he admittedly followed the respondent to Madras for her medical check up and that both the appellant and the respondent lived together till 10-6-1989. Basing on those findings, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the appellant is not entitled for annulment of the marriage in view of Section 12 (2) (a) (ii) of the Act. Consequently he dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said decision, the husband has preferred the above appeal.