SUDHA MEHTA Vs. RAVINDER MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the wife-Sudha Mehta against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dated May 17, 1989, annulling the marriage of the parties under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) RAVINDER Mehta, the husband, filed the petition for annulment of the marriage on the ground that at the time of the marriage, the wife" Sudha Mehta was suffering from recurrent attacks of epilepsy. The marriage of the parties took place on December 6, 1985. It was on 23rd of March, 1986 that Sudha Mehta suffered severe attack of epilepsy. Doctors were called to the house and she was examined. While giving history of the illness, she told the doctors that she was suffering from epilepsy since 1981. She was taken to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, and also to Municipal Zanana Hospital, Dhab Khatikan, Amritsar. The petition for annulment of marriage was filed on April 5, 1986. While controverting the allegations of the husband the wife took up the stand that the entire story was fabricated by the husband in order to extract money from her parents. At the time of the marriage on attache-case containing jewellery and other articles was lost. The valuables were to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ -. On persistent demand of the petitioner's father, her parents agreed to compensate the loss. Once a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid and thereafter a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid. Since the remaining amount was not paid promptly, she was taunted by family members of the husband. She was left at her parents' house on March, 1986. These allegations were controverted in the written statement filed by the wife. The trial Court framed following issues :- (1) Whether the consent of the petitioner was obtained by fraud ? If so, its effect ? (2) Whether the respondent is subjected to attacks of epilepsy ? If so, what is its effect ? (3) Relief.

(3.) AFTER both the parties led evidence, the trial Court decided the case in favour of the husband holding that the wife was subject to attacks of epilepsy and the consent of the husband was obtained by fraud for the marriage. The petition was allowed.