##PAGE1##

2025:BHC-AUG:25674-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.92 OF 2023 …. APPELLANT (Original Applicant)

VERSUS …. RESPONDENT (Original Respondent)

….

Mr. Amit A. Yadkikar a/w Mr. Akshay Kulkarni, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Jitendra V. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent ….

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 18/08/2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 22/09/2025 JUDGMENT : (Per : Sandipkumar C. More, J.)

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 17/08/2023 passed by the learned family court Judge, Aurangabad in Petition No. A-528 of 2018, the appellant – husband i.e. original petitioner, has filed this appeal. The learned family court judge, Aurangabad under the impugned judgment, has dismissed the aforesaid petition of the appellant – husband, which was filed by him for getting decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-

a) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

2. Background facts leading to this appeal are as under :

The marriage of the appellant – husband and respondent-wife was solemnized on 28/04/2018 at Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. When the respondent – wife started cohabiting with the appellant – husband, he realized that respondent – wife was having some health issues. He observed that respondent – wife used to sleep for longer period. She was also found urinating in bed and frequently falling unconscious. She was not completing work given to her and found unresponsive to the talks of the appellant – husband. The appellant – husband when tried to ask her father about such abnormal behaviour, he received unsatisfactory answers.

Thereafter, the appellant – husband with consent of father of the respondent – wife, got her examined through one doctor at Jalgaon and then came to know that respondent wife is suffering from disease known as cerebral-palsy. Even the said doctor had suggested that it was not proper on the part of father of respondent – wife to perform her marriage since her brain was not properly developed. The doctor also told the appellant – husband that the disease of respondent – wife is incurable. The appellant – husband also sought second opinion from another doctor at Aurangabad in respect of disease of the respondent – wife, but the doctor at Aurangabad also found the same and even advised that it was dangerous for the appellant – husband and his family members to stay with the respondent – wife. Thus, the appellant – husband felt cheated as the family members of respondent-wife did not disclose him before the marriage that the respondent-wife suffers from such mental disorder. According to the appellant-husband the respondent-wife is also unable to perform marital obligations because of her disease. The respondent-wife has left house of the appellant-husband on her own and started residing in the house of her parents in the year 2018 itself. The appellant-husband was constrained to send her a legal notice on 20/10/2018 for seeking divorce by mutual consent. However, the respondent-wife replied the said notice on 27/10/2018. Being dissatisfied with the reply, the appellant–husband filed the aforesaid divorce petition, stating that he was deceived due to the non-disclosure of the respondent–

wife's mental illness by her family members prior to the marriage.

On the contrary, the respondent–wife, through her written statement Exhibit-15, contested the divorce petition and denied the adverse allegations made against her. According to the respondent– wife, one of her hands is weak by birth, but she does not suffer from any mental illness. She asserted that she received her education in regular schools and college and that her medical records does not indicate any mental illness. She further claimed that the appellant–husband is, in fact, a distant relative, and it was his mother who brought the marriage proposal despite knowing the fact of weakness of her one hand. She further claime