The main legal point established in the judgment is that the consent of a party to a marriage must not be obtained by fraud, and the time limit for filing a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act must be adhered to.

R.L Anand, J. - Husband Dr. Parminder Charan Singh has filed the present appeal No. 48-M of 1999 and it has been directed against the judgment dated 22.2.1999 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, who dismissed the petition of the petitioner-appellant under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud committed upon him by the respondent-Harjit Kaur.

2. The brief facts of the case are that parties were married on 28.1.1990 according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies (Sikh) at Local Gurdwara at Delhi. It was registered with the Registrar of Marriages on 30.1.1990. The marriage was initially consumated at Delhi and other parts of the country. Thereafter, the appellant went to Germany in February, 1990. The respondent also joined the appellant in Germany in March, 1990.

3. The case set up by the appellant is that respondent came to India in June, 1990 to see her parents and then she went back to Germany in September, 1990. After about 3-4 months of her stay there, the respondent started showing her true colours and the mother of the appellant was informed on telephone by her son i.e. the appellant, that the main aim of the respondent was to grab money and property of the appellant. She tried to pick up quarrels and fight without any reason with the appellant and would not used to do any household work. Then she also used to malign the appellant before his friends and acquaintances and also used to become abusive and started physically attacking him.

4. In the month of July, 1991, the mother of the respondent also went to Germany and stayed in the house of the appellant. A son was born on 14.7.1991 to the respondent. The behaviour of the respondent thereafter became very violent, outrageous and intolerable. The mother of the respondent, after staying there for 3 months came back to India. In February, 1992, the respondent along with her child and without informing the appellant and without any reasons surreptitiously left the appellant causing great mental tension to him. After strenuous efforts and mental sufferings, the appellant came to know that she has come to India and staying with her parents in Chandigarh. Then the efforts of the appellant, who had specially came to India to make her agreeable to live with her husband as a dutiful wife and like a respectable person, had, however, no effect on the respondent as well as her parents. The appellant sometimes in the end of October, 1992, got a hint that the respondent before the present marriage was not unmarried. After a lot of investigations, the appellant found out that the respondent was married with another person, before her present marriage, but he was not in possession of the documents or the name and address of the person, to whom she was married. The appellant started more deeply probing this fact and found that the respondent was earlier married with Sanjit Singh of Meerut, U.P. The petitioners relations contacted Sanjit Singh in June, 1993, who confirmed this fact. Sanjit Singh also told that the respondent and her father had filed frivolous cases and extorted Rs. 6 lacs for obtaining divorce by mutual consent.

5. The case further propounded by the appellant is that neither the respondent nor any of her family members ever informed the appellant or his family members about the previous marriage of the respondent. As a matter of fact, they concealed the same from the appellant and his family members before the marriage of the appellant with the respondent that she was married at the time of marriage to the appellant, and the consent of the appellant to the marriage was obtained by the respondent and her family members by fraud, inasmuch as there is mis-representation and concealment concerning the respondent and deception as to a particular material facts and circumstances concerning the respondent. The appellant would have never agreed to marry the respondent, if he had known that th