Concealment Of Absence Of Uterus Is Fraud & A Material Fact Amounting To Annulment Of Marriage U/S 12(1)(c) Of Hindu Marriage Act: Delhi High Court - 2025-09-10

Delhi High Court: Concealing Absence of Uterus is 'Fraud' and Grounds for Marriage Annulment

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has upheld a Family Court's decision to annul a marriage, ruling that the deliberate concealment of a woman's inability to conceive due to the absence of a uterus constitutes fraud under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A division bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed an appeal filed by the wife, affirming that the non-disclosure of such a condition is a "material fact" that strikes at the root of the marital relationship.

Case Background

The case involves an appeal filed by Smt. Reeta Jha against a judgment dated November 5, 2024, by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Tis Hazari. The Family Court had declared her marriage to Sh. Mukund Kumar Jha, solemnized on April 21, 2016, null and void.

The husband had sought annulment on the grounds of fraud, alleging that the wife and her family had concealed the fact that she was born without a uterus and a left kidney, rendering her incapable of procreation. He discovered this fact in November 2017 after insisting on a medical check-up when the couple failed to conceive.

Arguments of the Parties

The appellant (wife) argued that she was unaware of her own medical condition and therefore, could not have deliberately concealed it. She claimed the question of fraud did not arise in the absence of knowledge.

The respondent (husband) contended that his consent to the marriage was obtained by fraudulent concealment of a material fact. He stated that the desire to have children was fundamental to his decision to marry and had he known the truth, he would not have consented to the union.

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles

The High Court meticulously reviewed the Family Court's findings, which were based on detailed evidence, including medical reports and the testimonies of the parties. The court noted that the wife's testimony was "riddled with material contradictions." She had initially claimed to be capable of conceiving, even alleging a miscarriage at one point, but later admitted in cross-examination that she never had a uterus.

The court found it highly improbable that a 24-year-old woman living in a metropolitan city would be unaware of the complete absence of menstruation. The judgment highlighted a key piece of evidence where the wife gave a false medical history to a gynaecologist, stating a date for her last menstrual period.

In its judgment, the court observed:

"It is a matter of settled medical knowledge that menstruation is nothing but the shedding of the uterine lining, 'endometrium' and without a place for the endometrium to develop and thereafter shed, the biological phenomenon of menstruation cannot occur... This Court finds it hard to believe that till the age of 24 she never sought to question the absence of menstruation..."

The bench affirmed that while not every concealment amounts to fraud under matrimonial law, the non-disclosure must relate to a "material fact or circumstance." Relying on established legal precedents, the court held that a fact that fundamentally affects the prospects of a normal married life qualifies as material.

Citing the Supreme Court in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs State of Gujarat , the bench reiterated that procreation is a genuine and integral aspect of marital life.

"Procreation forms a genuine expectation of a spouse, being an integral aspect of marital life alongside companionship and emotional support. The inability to conceive, arising from the absence of a uterus, strikes at the heart of marital obligations and expectations and cannot, therefore, be treated as immaterial."

Ruling on Condonation of Fraud

The court also addressed the legal bar under Section 12(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, which prevents annulment if the parties cohabited with full consent after the fraud was discovered. The evidence showed that the husband and wife lived under the same roof for about 20 days after the medical condition was revealed. However, the court found that the relationship had become strained and there was no reconciliation or resumption of a normal marital life. The wife had even executed handwritten notes acknowledging her condition and agreeing to separate. Therefore, the court concluded that this brief period of living in the same house did not amount to condonation of the fraud.

Final Decision

Finding no reason to interfere with the Family Court's "scrupulous and comprehensive appreciation of the material on record," the High Court concluded that the wife's deliberate concealment constituted fraud. The bench dismissed the appeal, confirming the decree of nullity.