The concealment of a material fact concerning a spouse's ability to conceive constitutes fraud under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, rendering the marriage voidable.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J.

1. The present appeal under Section 19(1)(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.11.2024, [Impugned Judgement.] by which the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Tis Hazari Courts (West), Delhi, [District Judge.], has declared the marriage as between the parties herein as null and void under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, [Act.]

2. The solitary challenge in this Appeal, as urged on behalf of the Appellant, is that the provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act are not applicable to the present case. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that there was no concealment of any material fact at the time of marriage. It is argued that the Appellant herself was unaware of her medical condition, namely, the absence of a uterus, and therefore, in the absence of such knowledge, the question of deliberate concealment does not arise.

3. We have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellant as well as the Respondent, and have also perused with care the detailed judgment rendered by the learned District Judge. For the sake of convenience, we consider it appropriate to extract the relevant portions of the Impugned Judgment herein below:

“A. Absence of uterus in the Respondent

14. Admittedly, the marriage of the parties was an arranged marriage, solemnized on 21.04.2016 in Delhi. The case of the petitioner (PW1) as made out in his deposition is that the respondent and her family kept him and his family in the dark about the respondent not having a uterus because of which she could not conceive. The petitioner wanted to have children. The petitioner in his examination-in-chief (evidence affidavit PW1/A) has deposed how the respondent avoided the issue of having children and going to the doctor and that finally on 13.11.2017, the petitioner took her to Origyn Fertility & IVF Centre, B.M. Gupta Hospital, Uttam Nagar, Delhi where she underwent an ultrasound of her lower abdomen. It was on 16.11.2017, that after obtaining the report when they went to the doctor, during the discussion, for the first time it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the respondent did not have a uterus and her left kidney and thus, she could never conceive. The petitioner in his cross- examination, has reiterated that it was on 16.11.2017, after he got the medical reports, for the first time he came to know that the respondent did not have a uterus and one kidney. He has further stated that this fact was concealed from him and his parents at the time of the marriage.

15. The petitioner examined Dr. Rashmi Sharma as PW3 who testified that the prescription dated 13.11.2017 (Ex. PW l/4) of the respondent was prepared by Dr. Ranu Dadu. She was not cross examined, The prescription (Ex. PW l/4) was prepared on her letterhead. The petitioner examined Dr, Ranu Dadu as PW4, who testified that her clinic was in the name of Dadu Surgical and Gynae Clinic in Pitampura, New Delhi she was a practicing gynaecologist since 2004, She proved the prescription of the respondent dated 13.11.2017 (Ex.PW 1/4) prepared by her, In the prescription she had recommended the respondent for the ultrasound of lower abdomen to Dr. Rajeev. The petitioner has examined Dr. Rajeev Choudhary as PW2, Dr. Rajeev Choudhary (PW2) has testified to having conducted the ultrasound examination