VINOS JASWAL Vs. ANURADHA JASWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who is the husband, is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Una dismissing his petition under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The judgment reproduced paras 4 to 15 of the petition. The ground urged for annulment of marriage was that the respondent was suffering from lack of movement from hip joints; as a result she could not sit on her legs, cannot work while sitting cannot stand up from the sitting position and cannot perform day to day work. She is not physically fit. This fact was discovered at the time of consummation of marriage which had taken place after great difficulty. The respondent was taken to the doctor as also to the Civil Hospital, Una for consultation and for treatment from an orthopedic surgeon who opined that this is a defect which she suffers from birth and it is incurable. This is in short the pleadings of the petitioner who seeks annulment of the marriage on the ground that his consent was obtained by fraud. Section 12 (1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides:-

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Mahajan vs. Dimple alias Kajal, 2011 12 SCC 1 to urge that even when there has been consummation of the marriage, the ground for annulment of marriage would still be available with the petitioner. In Pankaj Mahajan's case the Supreme Court while dealing with the case holds that the marriage was solemnized on 2.10.2000 at Amritsar and after the marriage, the parties cohabitated and resided together as husband and wife at Amritsar in the house of parents of the appellant. One child was born, who is in the custody of the wife. The Supreme Court on facts holds that after the marriage, the appellant-husband found that the respondent was acting in a very abnormal manner as she used to abruptly get very aggressive, hostile and suspicious in nature. In a fit of anger, she used to threaten that she would put an end to her life by committing suicide and involve the appellant and his family members in criminal cases unless she was provided a separate residence. On one occasion, she attempted to commit suicide by jumping from the terrace but was saved because of timely intervention of the appellant. Adverting to the evidence on record as also the provision of law, which included that of one Dr. Virendra Mohan (PW3) who was psychiatrist, the Court concluded that the husband had brought on record enough material to show that the wife was suffering from schizophrenia which fact stood proved by the testimony of Dr. Paramjit Singh (PW1), Dr. Ravinder Mohan Sharma (PW2), Dr. Virender Mohan (PW3) and Dr. Gurpreet Inder Singh Miglani (PW7). The Court then proceeds that no doubt, it was pointed out that after the marriage, the husband and wife were blessed with a female child, but that would not make any difference to the case of the appellant. The Court (in Pankaj Mahajan's case) then holds:-

(3.) The submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above case is squarely covers the case of the petitioner and the fact that the marriage has been consummated would not make any difference to the grant of relief.