Facts
This appeal arises out of Section 19(1)(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 151 CPC, 1908, associated with the order dated 05.11.2024 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi. The Family Court annulled the marriage of the parties under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; observed that the respondent-wife deliberately concealed to the husband that she did not have a uterus and that she was unable to conceive.
The appellant contended he did not know that she had a medical condition at the point of his marriage. The Family Court, however, based its decision on medical reports, doctor evidence, and even the wife’s own handwritten recognitions, where she acknowledged she could not conceive, as a basis for concluding that concealment was done in bad faith by the respondent-wife and that this was fraudulent as to a material fact.
Issues
Whether the wife’s concealing the fact that she did not have a uterus amounted to fraud under Sec 12(1)(c) HMA?
2. Whether the marriage could be annulled despite the claim that the appellant was unaware of her condition?
3. Whether continued cohabitation after discovery of the fraud prevented the annulment under Sec 12(2)(a)(ii) HMA?
Legal Provisions
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sec12(1)(c) (marriages voidable on the ground of fraud); Sec 12(2)(a)(ii) (preventing annulment because of consent to live together after discovery of fraud).
• Family Courts Act, 1984 – Sec 19(1)(4) (appeals).
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 151 (inherent powers).
Arguments
Appellant
The appellant–wife contended that she herself was unaware of her medical condition at the time of marriage and, therefore, could not have concealed it. According to her, concealment must be deliberate and intentional to qualify as fraud under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was argued that the Family Court had wrongly presumed knowledge on her part and that the contradictions in her testimony should not be treated as conclusive. She further submitted that just because there were disagreements every so often and post-discovery communications does not equate to fraud. The ground of annulment of the marriage was untenable.
• Respondent
In the alternative the Respondent-husband argued that the wife had deliberately concealed her incapacity to conceive which was at the very core of married life. He relied on medical reports and the doctors’ evidence that confirmed the absence of the uterus. He highlighted the wife’s own handwritten acknowledgments dated 29.11.2017 and 02.12.2017 in which she both acknowledged that she was incapable of bearing children and where she was even allowing him to remarry. It was argued that the concealment of a material fact by the wife was a fraud under section 12(1)(c) of the Act. The respondent also argued that the appellant’s changing positions, including lies about miscarriages and later lies about surgical removal, showed lack of credibility and bad faith.
Analysis
The Court reiterated that only a concealment of a material fact that is fundamental to the marriage can be viewed as fraud in terms of Section 12(1)(c) HMA. Concealment of a missing uterus, which has basis for procreation, is included in those considerations. The Supreme Court in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat (2013) 10 SCC 48, identified procreation as an element of marital obligations, and the Bombay High Court in Pradeep Ambhore v. Pallavi Ambhore and Vandana Kasliwal v. Jitendra Kasliwal 2017(6) MHLJ 627 has held that concealing a medical inability to conceive is a material fact that justified annulment. The Appellant’s inconsistent narratives, her misrepresenting miscarriage as the cause, and then later contending it was due to a surgical extraction, undermined her reliability. The signed acknowledgements of the respondent also supported his case.
The Court held that the prohibition in Section 12(2)(a)(ii) HMA should not be applied since the fact that the couple continued living in the same house after the respondent learned of the appellant’s incapacity was not a condonation from a resumption of cohabitation; there must be evidence of a conscious resumption of the matrimonial relationship and that was absent here (Bikkar Singh v. Mohinder Kaur MANU/PH/0146/1981).
Judgment
The Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court’s order, noting that the wife-appellant was found to have fraudulently concealed her infertility, which was considered the suppression of a material fact under Section 12(1)(c) HMA.
The appeal was dismissed, the annulment of marriage was upheld.
Conclusion
This judgement confirms that the concealment of a major medical condition affecting the ability to procreate is a material fact for the purposes of Section 12(1)(c) HMA, and courts will not characterize the concealment as trivial in nature as it goes to the root of the marital life. It also continues to hold that continued occupation of the matrimonial home without actual cohabitation does not act as a bar to an annulment application.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more
than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Anwesha Anant
For reading more please refer: XYZ vs ABC
