Marriage validity under the Indian Divorce Act hinges on accurate disclosure of personal information; established fraud must be proven to annul a marriage.

1. This is a petition under S.18 and 19. Indian Divorce Act, for a declaration that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was null and void.

2. Petitioner was a Brahmin who belongs to Calicut. (He claims still to be a Brahmin, a point which will be considered below.) The respondent is a Latin Catholic Christian and belongs to Thankasseri, Quilon. In 1968-69 she was a Nursing Tutor in the Nurses' Auxiliary Midwives School at Calicut. The petitioner who was then employed in Madras came to know her and fell in love with her. During the time he was in Calicut on leave they used to meet and their friendship grew. Although it is in dispute as to who originated the idea, they had decided by May, 1969 to execute a marriage agreement. The petitioner was then employed in Bangalore while the respondent continued at Calicut. On May 30. 1969 the respondent along with her colleague Visalakshy, the latter's husband and another person went to Mysore. On the evening the petitioner who had come to Mysore for the purpose and the respondent registered a "marriage agreement" of which Ext. P1 is a certified copy before the Sub Registrar, Mysore. The registration was done at the hotel where they were then staying on the necessary application being made for that purpose. The document describes the petitioner as 33 years old and the respondent as 31 years old. It is the agreed case that while the petitioner's age is correct, the respondent had then passed 36 years. It recites that they have been in love for a long time, that they have agreed to marry and live as husband and wife and that they would remain faithful and loyal to each other etc. After the execution of Ext. P1 the respondent returned to Calicut. Subsequent to Ext. P1 the petitioner and the respondent have been living as husband and wife. On January 19, 1970 the petitioner and the respondent were married in the Infant Jesus Pro Cathedral, Thankassery, Quilon. Ext. P2 is a certificate of the marriage. The respondent asserts but the petitioner denies that before the marriage he was baptised and became a Christian. Subsequently the respondent happened to be employed in various places like Malappuram, Quilon, Palghat and Calicut. They had-lived together as husband and wife in these places as also in Coimbatore, Bangalore and Mysore. In June 1976 the respondent went to Kuwait where she had several relatives and got an employment in September 1976. With the help of the respondent the petitioner also went to Kuwait in August 1977 and he secured a job in October the same year. In Kuwait they lived as husband and wife. In November 1979 the petitioner came back to India. On February 2, 1980 he presented this petition.

3. The petitioner seeks the declaration that his marriage with the respondent is null and void on two grounds. It is stated that the respondent who is about 4 years older had misrepresented her age and thereby committed a fraud upon him both at the time of registering Ext. P1 at Mysore and the marriage at Thankassery. He was always under the impression that the respondent was younger to him as stated in Ext. P1 and he came to know her real age only towards the end of 1979 when be happened to see her immigration certificate and school final certificate. It is further stated that the respondent is impotent and that by reason of her impotency or malformation the marriage bad not been and could not be consummated. Towards the and of 1979, he states, he came to know her real age and impotency from the respondent herself. He seeks the declaration on the two ground