Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal by the wife is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Shimla whereby he has allowed the petition of the husband and annulled the marriage of the parties under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the parties who are Hindus were married on 25h November, 2001. According to the husband the marriage between the parties was not consummated due to impotence of the wife. It is also the allegation of the husband that his consent for marriage was obtained by the wife and her family by fraud and material concealment of fact. According to the husband though the wife was about 31 years old when they got married she did not before her marriage disclose to her husband or his family members that she had not attained menarche and has never had menses. Further the wife was not having a uterus and one ovary was missing and these facts were known to her but the husband was kept in the dark and his consent for marriage was obtained by concealing material facts.

3. The wife admitted the factum of marriage but denied the allegations that the marriage has not been consummated. According to her no fraud has been committed on the husband.

4. The parties led evidence and the learned trial Court held that the marriage between the parties had not been consummated because of the impotence of the wife. The trial Court also held that material facts were withheld from the husband at the time of marriage and that a fraud was played upon the husband while obtaining his consent for marriage. He accordingly allowed the petition and annulled the marriage. Hence, the present appeal. 5.1 have heard Sh. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the wife and Sh. Kuldip Singh, and learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the husband.

6. The main contention of Sh. Bhupender Gupta is that there is noting on record to show that the wife is impotent and therefore the marriage could not have been annulled under Section 12(a) of the Act. He further submits that even if it be presumed that the wife is suffering from certain physical defects, the said defects are curable and at best what can be said is that the wife is sterile but it cannot be said that she is impotent. He also submits that no fraud has been committed on the husband. According to him the version of the husband cannot be believed since he continued to live with the wife for about two months after the marriage without any murmur or voice of dissent. He also submits that the husband has led no evidence to show that any inquiry was made from the wife or her family members about state of her health prior to the marriage.

7. On the other hand Sh. Kuldip Singh submits that this is a clear case of fraud since the wife has withheld a material fact that she is suffering from major disorder inasmuch as menstruation had never occurred. According to him the wife was under treatment and neither she nor her family disclosed to the husband that she had never had menses and if this fact had been disclosed the husband would never have got married to her. He also submits that impotency need not always by physical but may be psychological and according to him the husbands version is true and judgment and decree of the learned trial Court should be upheld. 8.1 need not deal with the evidence in detail. The admitted facts are that the parties were married on 25th November, 2001. Till about the first or second of December admittedly they had no occasion to have sexual intercourse. It is also the admitted case of both the parties that during the month of December, 2001 the wife visited her parental house a number of times, though there is some dispute with regard to the number of days she spent on each visit. Though in her reply the wife has denied the fact that she was ever checked by a gynaecologist, in her statement in Court on oath she has admitt