( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the husband, whose marriage with the respondent (has been held to be null and void under Section 11 of the Act, on the ground that he had a wife living on the date of the marriage. A decree of nullity has also been passed under Section 12 of the Act on the ground that the respondent's consent to the marriage was obtained by fraud within the meaning of clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of that section.

( 2 ) SMT. Deepabai (respondent) was married to Rajaram (appellant) on November 25, 1964, in the Hindu sacramental form of marriage. On September 2, 1965, she made an application under Section 11 of the Act for a declaration that the marriage was nullity inasmuch as Rajaram had been married to one Kewalibai, daughter of Kashinath Lohar of Bai-Ka-bagicha, about 10 years earlier. It was also alleged that the fact of the previous marriage was deliberately suppressed from her so that her consent to the marriage was obtained by fraud.

( 3 ) THE application was resisted by the appellant, denying that he was married earlier. He asserted that he did not eve