IMPORTANT POINT
Concealment of a mental disorder in marriage constitutes fraud, justifying annulment under Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.

1.The instant appeal is filed by the husband against the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 4-A/2023 (Ankit Verma Vs. Smt. Ankita Verma & Another) whereby the application under Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the husband (appellant) has been dismissed.

2.Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 23.01.2022 at Central Point Hotel, Korba, as per the Hindu rites & rituals. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 started cohabitation with the appellant at Korba. Soon after one month of the date of the marriage, respondent No. 1 in the intervening night of 27-28.02.2022 at about 2:00 am, started acting weird and was very aggressive in her behaviour. She turned off the fan and exhaust of the room and also threw the blankets in the night. The entire episode lasted for around 2-3 hours and during this time, she also assaulted the appellant. The very next day i.e. on 28.02.2022, she climbed on a tree in the courtyard and started eating raw leaves. The attack of insanity and weird behaviour on respondent No. 1 left the appellant and his entire family clueless. The appellant thus informed his in-laws about the incident, on which they came to Korba on the same night i.e. 28.02.2022. The father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and the husband of his sister-in-law all came to Korba. Respondent No. 1 continued to behave aggressively even in their presence, which was also recorded on the mobile phone. On further enquiry from the in-laws, they admitted that respondent No. 1 is suffering from a mental disorder and she has been treated by one Dr. Ashok Trivedi since 2013. The appellant thus, along with the in-laws consulted a psychiatrist Dr. Neelima Mahapatro at Korba, the said doctor advised that it would not be safe to continue the pregnancy since respondent No. 1 would require medicine for her psychiatric complication. Thus, the prescription was drawn in this regard, in the presence of the in-laws. Respondent No. 2 requested the said doctor to refer them for Dr. Swayamprava Bahal, CIP, Ranchi. Further, the case is that respondent No. 1 was pregnant for 06 weeks on 01.03.2022, however on the advice of the said doctor Neelima Mahapatro and another Dr. Jyoti Shrivastava (Gynecologist), the pregnancy was terminated with the consent of the mother of respondent No. 1. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 went to her maiden house along with her parents and siblings on the same day.

3.In reply, the respondents had submitted an application in which it has been stated that respondent No. 1 had pursued B.E. degree in Computer Science in the year 2016 from Rungta Engineering College, Bhilai. All the documents in this regard are with the appellant in Korba. Respondent No. 1 was one month pregnant and she was forcibly aborted due to which the condition of respondent No. 1 became critical due to excessive bleeding. Her blood count decreased to 4 per cent and blood formation stopped, for which she was treated in Ranchi. The marriage of the appellant and respondent No. 1 is not a void marriage.

4.The trial Court framed a question as to whether the appellant/husband is entitled to a decree declaring the marriage solemnized between him and respondent No. 1/wife as null and void. The respondents have not produced any evidence or document on their behalf and remained ex-parte before the trial Court. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the appellant, the trial Court dismissed the application of the appellant filed under Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

5.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and has also failed to appreciate the documents brought on record. The learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that the entire case of the appellant was based on the grounds of recurrent