- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Praveen Kumari v. Man Mohan Kumar .
Summary of Opinion — M.L. Jain, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
The parties were married on 18-1-1979. On 15-9-1980 the husband filed a petition under Section 5(1)(c) and Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking annulment on the ground that the wife suffered recurrent attacks of epilepsy which had been concealed from him and that his consent was obtained by fraud. The Additional District Judge found the husband's allegation correct and annulled the marriage by order dated 4-12-1982. The present appeal challenges that order.
Medical records and testimony shown in the record: Dr. M.L. Arora referred the wife on 27-2-1979 to G.B. Pant Hospital; Dr. Barua examined her on 1-3-1979 and found epilepsy (as per hospital record produced by Dr. S.R. Jairam). Dr. M.N. Passy examined her on 20-9-1982 and found epilepsy; he also treated her as an indoor patient from 7-1-1980 to 15-1-1980. Doctors on both sides stated she was suffering from epilepsy.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the wife was suffering from epilepsy (fits) at the time of solemnisation of the marriage.
- Whether concealment of epilepsy, if present, amounted to fraud vitiating the husband's consent under Section 5(1)(c) and Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The engagement lasted one year and there was no evidence of the disease during that period.
- After marriage the wife was allegedly maltreated due to insufficiency of dowry, and that maltreatment caused her to become epileptic.
- Concealment during engagement was not established simply because the engagement lasted a year; the disease could have been discoverable during engagement and consent may still have been given.
Arguments Presented on Behalf of the Wife
- It was urged that Dr. Barua was available but was not produced by the husband to testify.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court reviewed the medical records and testimony: hospital records (Dr. S.R. Jairam) indicating Dr. Barua examined the wife on 1-3-1979 and found epilepsy; and the testimony of Dr. M.N. Passy who examined and treated her and also found epilepsy. The court identified the crucial question as whether she was suffering fits at the time of solemnisation. The husband's testimony was that she had an epileptic attack soon after she was brought to the matrimonial home on the wedding day, and that she had another fit in the presence of her parents; he thereafter took her for treatment and epilepsy was confirmed.
The court noted the wife's contention regarding non-production of Dr. Barua but observed that Dr. Barua's appearance would not have made a difference to the evidence. The court rejected the appellant's contention that the disease resulted from post-marriage maltreatment for dowry because the first attack occurred soon after she entered the matrimonial home, before any occasion for dowry demand or ill-treatment had arisen. The court also held that the fact of a year-long engagement did not prove the disease was discoverable by the husband or that he knew of it and nonetheless consented to marriage.
On this basis the court found no reason to disturb the findings of the court below.
Holding and Implications
Appeal dismissed.
The order of the Additional District Judge annulling the marriage (order dated 4-12-1982) is upheld. No costs were awarded. The opinion does not discuss broader legal implications or purport to lay down new precedent; its direct effect is to maintain the annulment previously granted.
M.L Jain, J.:— The parties were married on 18-1-1979. A petition was filed by the husband on 15-9 1980 against the wife for annulment of marrigge Under Section 5(1)(c) and Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground that the wife suffered recurrent attacks of epilepsy and this fact was concealed from the husband and his consent was obtained by fraud. The learned Addl. District Judge found that the allegation of the husband was correct and annulled the marriage by his order dated 4-12-1982. Hence, this appeal.
2. Barely nine/ten days after the marriage Dr. M.L Arora had referred here by his letter dated 27-2-1979 for treatment to G.B Pant Hospital. From the record brought by Dr. SR. Jairam of the said Hospital, it was disclosed that Dr. Barua had examined her on 1-3-1979 and found that she was suffering from epilepsy. She also produced one witness Dr. M.N Passy of the Hindu Rao Hospital, who was a Senior Physician. He examined her on 20-9-1982. He found her to be suffering from epilepsy and she was under his treatment as indoor patient from 7-1-1980 to 15-1-1980. Though he stated that it was a curable disease, all the same, the Doctors on either side have said that she was suffering from epilepsy. The crucial question is whether at the time of solemnisation of marriage she was suffering from fits of epilepsy. The husband deposed that she suffered an attack of epilepsy at about 3.30 p.m soon after she was brought to the matrimonial home after the marriage. Her parents came to see her and again she got the fits. Subsequently, he took her for treatment. It was confirmed that she was suffering from epilepsy. It was urged on behalf of the wife that Dr. Barua was available, but was not produced. As a matter of fact, whether Dr. Barua rejoined the hospital came to be known only when Dr. Jairam was examined in court. I do not think that the appearance of Dr. Barua would have made any difference.
3. It was contended on behalf of the appellant, as it was done in the lower court, that the engagement lasted one year and there was no such disease during that period. After marriage she was mal-treated on account of insufficiency of dowry and that made her epileptic. This allegation is not true because it was soon after she entered the matrimonial home that she was attacked by epilepsy and by then there was no occasion for demanding dowry or ill-treatment. That she suffered from epilepsy during the period of engagement appears to have been concealed from the husband and the mere fact that the engagement lasted for a year is no proof that the disease of epilepsy could have been discovered by the husband, or that he knew about it and yet consented to the marriage.
4. I, therefore, see no reason to disturb the findings arrived at by the learned court below and the relief granted by it and dismiss the appeal. No costs.
Alert