Antony Dominic, J.

1. These appeals arise from the judgment of the Family Court, Ernakulam in O.P.No.1561 of 2009, 1698 of 2009 and 919 of 2010. Among the appeals, M.A.No.29 of 2013 against the judgment in O.P.No.1698 of 2009, is filed by the husband and the other two appeals are filed by the wife.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 7.6.2009 and the couple got separated on 27.7.2009. It is thereafter these OPs were filed. The prayer in O.P.1561 of 2009 filed by the husband was for a declaration that his marriage with the respondent wife is a nullity. According to him, facts regarding her ailments were suppressed from him and that his consent was obtained by fraud entitling him for the relief prayed for.

3. In O.P.No.1698 of 2009 filed by the wife, she prayed for return of Rs.15,00,000/- paid to the husband as partimoney and a wedding ring of one sovereign. In O.P.No.919 of 2010 filed by the wife, she sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and non-consummation of marriage. The cases were tried together and on behalf of the husband, himself and two other witnesses were examined as Pws 1 to 3 and on behalf of the wife, herself, her father and three other witnesses were examined as Rws 1 to 5. Exts.A1 to A8 and Exts.B1 to B6 were produced by both sides.

4. Thereafter, Family Court passed a common judgment dated 21.7.2012 allowing O.P.No.1561 of 2009 filed by the husband and declaring the marriage as a nullity. O.P.No.919 of 2010 filed by the wife for divorce was dismissed. In O.P.No.1698 of 2009 filed by the wife, a decree entitling her for return of Rs.15,00,000/-and the wedding ring was passed. It is aggrieved by this common judgment, these appeals are filed by the parties aggrieved.

5. We shall first consider Mat Appeal Nos.29 of 2013 and 85 of 2013 filed against the judgment in O.P.Nos. 1561 of 2009 and 919 of 2010. Admittedly marriage was an arranged one. The case of the husband, who is a qualified Doctor, was that the wife was suffering from congenital hypothyroidism and that it was suppressing the same from him, his consent was obtained. According to him, the consent thus obtained is vitiated by fraud and entitled him for a decree declaring the marriage as a nullity. The fact that wife was suffering from an ailment, which according to the husband is congenital hypothyroidism, while according to the wife, it is hypothyroidism and not congenital hypothyroidism, is admitted. It is also the admitted case of the wife herself that she was suffering from the said ailment from her childhood (from the age of 8) and that she was under treatment in various hospitals including Amritha Hospital, Kochi. Her case was that the husband is a Doctor and that prior to the marriage, the details of her ailment were fully disclosed to the husband's mother and according to them, it was only a deficiency and not a disease. The wife contended that it was with full knowledge of the ailment, consent was given by the husband. Therefore, wife contends that there was no suppression as alleged by the husband, and on that basis, she sought dismissal of O.P.No.1561 of 2009.

6. Having considered the rival submissions and the evidence adduced by both sides, we are inclined to agree with the contention raised by the husband that his consent was obtained suppressing the ailment of the wife. First of all, even according to the evidence adduced by the respondents, the details of the ailments were disclosed to the mother of the husband.

There is nothing to indicate that the ailment was disclosed to the husband or that he was aware of the ailment of the wife any time before his consent for the marriage was obtained. If that be so, it is obvious that his consent for the marriage was obtained without disclosing the fact that wife was suffering from an ailment. Even otherwise, the evidence adduced by the wife does not in any manner prove that husband was made known her ailment. This itself entitled the husband for a decree under Section