MADHUSUDAN Vs. CHANDRIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a husband's appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against a decree passed by the Fifth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, on 18th December, 1973, dismissing his petition for annulment of marriage under Section 12 (1) (c) and, in the alternative, for judicial separation under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Act

(2.) THE parties were married at Raipur on 6th December 1972. After marriage the wife came to Jabalpur on 7th December, 1972, where the husband resides, At the time of marriage the husband was aged 24 years and the wife 21 years. Both of them are graduates and come from respectable Guiarati families. The parties had marital intercourse from 8th to 10th December, 1972. The husband, it seems, noticed some ulcer near the private parts of the wife. He got her examined by Dr. (Miss) Swami (P. W. 1) who advised blood test. The husband then took the wife to Dr. Raja Indurkhya (P. W. 2) for pathalogical examination of the blood. The blood test was positive for syphilis. On further examination Dr. Swami diagnosed that the wife was suffering from syphilis and prescribed treatment. On 17th January, 1973 the husband applied under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act for annulment of marriage. The wife was again examined at the instance of the husband by Dr. (Mrs.) Urmila Jamdar (P. W. 3) on 21st January, 1973, who found that the ulcer was in the process of healing. She also confirmed the diagnosis of syphilis. In the meantime, the parents of the wife were informed. They came to Jabalpur and the wife left with them for Raipur on 23rd January, 1973.

(3.) IN his petition the husband alleged that the wife at the time of marriage was suffering from syphilis for more than three years and that this fact was deliberately concealed by the wife and her father and the husband's consent to the marriage was obtained by fraud within the meaning of Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act. It was also alleged that as the wife was suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form for a period of more than three years, the husband was entitled to dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (v ). The case under Section 13 (1) (v) of the Act was later given up. At the fag end of the trial, the husband amended the petition for incorporating a relief for judicial separation under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Act. Thus, finally the husband's petition remained primarily a petition for annulment of marriage by a decree of nullity under Section 12 (1) (c) and, in the alternative, for obtaining judicial separation under Section 10 (1) (d ).