Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the wife against the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2014 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Jamakhandi, allowing the husband's petition under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for annulment of marriage. The husband and wife were married on 13.02.2005 at Basveshwar Temple, Kadapatti. The wife came to the matrimonial home on 14.02.2005 and informed the husband that she had her menstrual period about 8 days prior. She again had periods on 15.02.2005 and went to her parents' house on 17.02.2005 to observe 'sacred month', staying there till 27.05.2005. During her stay, she underwent a medical checkup at Government Hospital on 25.05.2005 and was found to be 22 weeks pregnant. She delivered twin baby boys on 20.08.2005. The husband contended that the wife was pregnant by another man at the time of marriage and that she concealed this fact, constituting fraud. The wife denied the allegations and claimed that the pregnancy was from the husband. The trial court allowed the petition, holding that the wife was pregnant at the time of marriage and that the husband was not the father. The wife appealed. The High Court framed the issue of whether the husband proved that the wife was pregnant by another man at the time of marriage. The court noted that the husband's case was based on the medical evidence that the wife was 22 weeks pregnant on 25.05.2005, which would indicate conception around late December 2004 or early January 2005, before the marriage. However, the court found that the doctor who examined the wife was not examined as a witness, and the ultrasound report was not produced. The court held that the medical evidence was not reliable. The court also noted that the wife's explanation that she had menstrual periods after marriage and that the pregnancy could have been from the husband was plausible. The court held that the burden was on the husband to prove that the wife was pregnant by another man, and he failed to discharge this burden. The court further held that even if the wife was pregnant at the time of marriage, non-disclosure of pregnancy does not amount to fraud under Section 12(1)(d) unless the pregnancy is by a man other than the husband. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of nullity, and dismissed the husband's petition.
Headnote
A) Hindu Marriage Act - Annulment of Marriage - Fraud - Section 12(1)(d) - The husband sought annulment on ground that wife was pregnant by another man at time of marriage. The wife denied and claimed pregnancy was from husband. The trial court allowed the petition. On appeal, the High Court held that the husband failed to prove that the wife was pregnant by another man. The medical evidence of 22 weeks pregnancy on 25.05.2005, if accepted, would indicate conception before marriage, but the court found the evidence unreliable. The court also held that non-disclosure of pregnancy per se does not amount to fraud unless the pregnancy is by another man. The appeal was allowed and the decree of nullity was set aside. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence - Medical Evidence - Duration of Pregnancy - The doctor's opinion that the wife was 22 weeks pregnant on 25.05.2005 was based on ultrasound, but the court noted that the doctor was not examined and the ultrasound report was not produced. The court held that such evidence is not sufficient to prove the exact date of conception. (Paras 7-9) C) Hindu Marriage Act - Burden of Proof - Section 12(1)(d) - The burden is on the petitioner to prove that the wife was pregnant by another man at the time of marriage. The husband failed to discharge this burden. The court held that mere proof of pregnancy at the time of marriage is not enough; it must be shown that the pregnancy was by a person other than the husband. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the husband proved that the wife was pregnant by another man at the time of marriage, and whether such pregnancy constituted fraud under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 entitling annulment of marriage.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and decree dated 18.01.2014 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Jamakhandi in M.C.No.3/2006 is set aside. The petition filed by the husband under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is dismissed.
Law Points
- Fraud under Section 12(1)(d) of Hindu Marriage Act
- 1955 requires concealment of material fact at time of marriage
- pregnancy per se not fraud unless by another man
- burden of proof on petitioner
- medical evidence of duration of pregnancy must be reliable
