KALA RAMAN Vs. RAVI RANGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At this stage of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, the suit is sought to be nipped in the bud as the plaint does not disclose the cause of action. The plaintiff/opposite party seeks a relief annulling the marriage between the parties to be void on the grounds of concealment of material facts, which constitutes fraud. Admittedly the marriage between the parties was solemnized in accordance with Hindu Ritual and Rites on May 12, 2013 at Guruvayur in the State of Kerala. It is certainly not a chosen marriage where the parties have fallen in love and decided to marry but a negotiating one through the social contracts. Both the parties and their family members were interacting and in fact, have met personally exchanging their views and aspirations in the life and ultimately agreed to marry. During the marriage ceremony, the plaintiff/opposite party experienced the smell of foul breath coming from the mouth of the petitioner which was explained being due to improper bowl movements as a result of anxiety. The petitioner was taken to the doctors and was opined to suffer from Chronic Periodontitis. According to the opposite party, even during the honeymoon, the consummation could not be done as the constant foul smell was coming from the mouth of the opposite party. In course of visit to several doctors, one of them reported that the bacteria presents in her gum can be transmitted to her partner through her mouth. The annulment of marriage is sought on the plea of concealment of such disease obstructing in consummation of the marriage under section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) The wife files an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code praying for rejection of the plaint as the grounds stated in the plaint neither amounts to fraud nor a concealment envisaged under section 12(1)(c) of the Code. The Trial Court rejected the said application i.e. how the revisional application is filed before this Court.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the opposite party submits that if a party to marriage is suffering from some abhorrent disease which was not disclosed, it would amount to concealment by the Bombay High Court in case of P. v. K., 1982 AIR(Bom) 400. It is strongly submitted that to bring an action under section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of fraud, there must be some abuse of the evidential position, some intentional imposition or deliberate concealment of material facts. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the reliance is placed upon a judgment rendered by Madras High Court in case of Sujatha v. C.D. Hariharan, 1995 2 MadLJ 327.