G ANURADHA Vs. G NARAYANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the wife questioning the decree of annulment of marriage granted by the lower court under Section 12(1) (c) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the application filed by the respondent-husband. The respondent filed the application for annulment of marriage on the ground that the appellant was suffering from a disease known as 'Hyper Prolactinemia with Galloctorrhea' in medical parlance with symptoms like continuous lactation of milk from her breasts and irregular menstruation due to which she is incapable of bearing children and that his consent for the marriage was obtained by fraud and wilful suppression of the said facts.

(2.) The respondent is an Engineer employed in the Thermal Power Station at Paloncha in Khammam District. The case of the respondent as set out in the Original Petition filed by him and as it appears from his evidence as PW1 is as follows : The marriage of the respondent with the appellant took place on 8-2-1989 at Guntur. It was consummated on 18-2-1989. On the same night the respondent found continuous milky lactation from the breasts of the appellant. When questioned, the appellant pleaded ignorance and said that she was suffering from anaemia and harmonal problems. After the nuptials , the appellant accompanied the respondent to Chandrapur where the respondent was then working. While they lived at Chandrapur, the appellant was got treated for irregular menstruation and anaemia. In July, 1989, the respondent left his job at Chandrapur and joined the Thermal Power Station at Paloncha. The appellant joined him at Paloncha in October, 1989. As she was having irregular menstruation, the respondent took her to Dr. Syamala of Paloncha for treatment. On the advice of Dr. Syamala, she was taken to Guntur in November, 1989 for treatment from specialist doctors. After carrying on some investigations, the doctors at Guntur advised to get her examined for serum prolactin. But she did not undergo that examination and returned to Paloncha as she had no money. In January, 1990, the respondent took her again to Guntur for examination by Dr. Lobo of St. Joseph Hospital. On the advice of Dr. Lobo. serum Prolactin test was got conducted on 21-1-1990 by APPLE Diagnostics (Private) Limited, Guntur. The said test revealed that the appellant had high rate of prolactin i.e. 1900 UU/ML against the normal range of 90 to 600 UU/ML. Ex. Al is the report given by the Apple Diagnostics Private Limited, Guntur, dated 21-1-1990. Based on the said report, Dr. Lobo opined that the appellant was suffering from the disease called "Hyper Prolactinemia with Galloctonhea' and that there was no possibility of the appellant bearing children as normal menstruation was not possible. Exs.Al to A6 are the case-sheets regarding the treatment given to the appellant in St. Joseph's hospital, Guntur. The respondent suspected that the parents of the appellant were aware of the said disease but they did not disclose the same at the time of marriage. According to the information gathered by the respondent, the appellant used to take some tablets to avoid pregnancy and that she got the above disease pre-mantally. In February, 1990 PW2. The elder sister of the respondent took the appellant to Dr. Vasundhara ot Paloncha for opinion. After going through the earlier records, she also gave the same opinion. The appellant, however, did not disclose anything regarding her pre-marital relations. Thereafter the appellant left for her parent's house at Guntur. In March, 1990, the father of the appellant (RW4) along with on Veeraswamy, who was one of the mediators who settled the marriage, came to Paloncha and took the respondent to Dr. Ragini, Asst. Professor Gynaecology Department, Government Hospital, Guntur, who showed the diagnosis report of Galloctorrhea from the Superintendent Dr. Sarojinamma. When asked by the respondent whether any patient suffering from the said disease was fit for marital relations, Dr. Ragini, however, did not give any reply and she did not also give any certificate. The respondent thereupon demanded production of a fitness certificate from any qualified endocrinologist as a condition for accepting the appellant and also issued a telegram to that effect on 6-4-1990 Ex.B.22 But they failed to produce any such certificate. On the other hand, they made some attempts to force her on him against his will and also to assault him physically. Finally on 18-12-1991, the respondent got issued to the appellant a legal notice, the office copy of which is marked as Ex. A2 in the case, calling upon her to give her consent for annulment of marriage to which the appellant sent a contentious reply dated 21-1-1992 (Ex.A3) with false allegations. Hence the respondent filed the Original Petition on 24-1-1992 for annulment of marriage. To prove his case, the respondent examined himself as PW1 and his elder sister as PW2.

(3.) The appellant resisted the petition contending, inter alia, that she was not suffering from any such disease as alleged by the respondent, that there was no concealment of any facts by her or her parents and no fraud was played by them, that the marriage was settled after protracted negotiations through mediators, that the respondent was paid dowry to the tune of a lakh of rupees besides 20 sovereigns of gold and articles worth Rs.30,000.00, that they led normal marital life at Chandrapur and later at Paloncha till October, 1989, that she also became pregnant through the respondent but the pregnancy was terminated as per their mutual desire through Dr. Syamala of Paloncha (RW3) in November, 1989, that the respondent demanded a further sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 from her parents for purchasing a house-site at Hyderabad, but the same was not complied with by her parents. The respondent, therefore, used to beat her and ill-treat her, and finally sent her away to Guntur and later filed this petition with a view to getting more dowry by marrying another girl. It is also her case that she came to know subsequently that the respondent was' previously married to one Mamimala of Guntur who filed a petition for divorce against him in OP.No.191/S2 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur, that the respondent, in turn, filed OP.No. 186/82 against the said Manimala for restitution of conjugal rights, that the said petition filed by him was dismissed and the petition for divorce filed fay Manimala was decreed on 14-1-1985. According to her, the respondent is a person of sadistic nature with an unstable and peculiar bent of mind and he suffers from mental phobia. The same is borne out by the numerous letters addressed by the respondent to his former wife Manimala and her father which have been marked as exhibits in the said proceedings. The certified copies of those letters as well as the pleadings and the orders passed in the said O.Ps. are marked as Exs. Bl to B18 in this proceeding. In Para 13 of the counter filed by her to the O.P., the appellant, however, admitted that due to the torture, both physical and mental, meted out to her by the respondent, she became sick and faced some strange unknown disease of a little lactation in the year 1990. The same is sought to be exaggerated by the respondent with ulterior motives. To prove her case, the appellant examined herself as RW1 besides one of the mediators who settled her marriage with the respondent as RW2, DR. Syamala, who allegedly treated her at the time of abortion, as RW3 and her (appellant's) father as RW.4. The medical prescriptions issued by RW3 to the appellant on 2-11-1989 and 9-11-1989 were got marked as Exs. B.20 and B21 respectively. To disprove the allegation that she was suffering from Hyper Prolactinemia with Galloctorrhea, the appellant claimed that she underwent endocrinology test in Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad and filed the test report which was marked as Ex. B.24 in the case. According to Dr. Syamala (RW3), the recordings in Ex.B.24 were normal which means the patient was healthy.