Archana vs D.R. Lakshminarayana

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

Appellant herein was the respondent in a Case M.C. No. 2992/2010 which was pending on the file of 5th Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore. Respondent herein was the petitioner in the said case. The parties are referred to their ranking as referred before the trial Court.

Petitioner''s marriage with the respondent was solemnized as per customs on 31.01.2010 at Bangalore. They led their marital life for some time and had gone to Tirupathi to seek the blessings of the Almighty on 14.02.2010. After few days of the marriage, petitioner came to know that the respondent, who is his wife and her parents had suppressed the material facts about her cardiac problem and therefore, he was left with no opportunity except to file a petition seeking annulment of marriage u/s 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The said petition was resisted by the respondent on various grounds and petitioner was called upon to prove the allegations strictly.

Petitioner himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs. P1 to P5. Respondent herself is examined as RW-1 and got marked Exs. R1 to R7. Ultimately, the learned Judge has chosen to allow the petition and the marriage u/s 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been annulled by framing the following two points for consideration:

Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent and her family members by suppressing the material fact with regard to the health condition of respondent have performed her marriage with him?

What order?"

The impugned judgment dated 28.11.2013 is called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. After) going through the records and hearing the arguments, we are of the opinion that the matter needs to be remitted to the trial Court for recording evidence afresh apart from what has been already recorded. We find that other than the parties, no body has been examined in support of their respective case to prove the inability of the respondent to be able to procreate children. Nothing is placed on record to prove that the respondent was suffering from congenital heart disease prior to the marriage. Congenital heart disease occurs when the heart or blood vessels entering or leaving the heart do not develop normally before birth.

Medical records placed before the trial Court are subsequent to the marriage. Just because the respondent has admitted certain medical documents, it would not be proper to contend that he has been successful in making out a clear case relating to her congenital heart problem. Suffice to state that the evidence placed on record is quite inadequate to annul the marriage solemnised in accordance with the customs of the parties. Therefore, the matter in question needs to be remitted to the trial Court for the parties to lead further evidence, if necessary to adduce evidence in regard to the medical condition of the respondent. Hence, appeal needs to be allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 28.11.2013.

ORDER

Appeal is allowed. Judgment dated-28.11.2013 passed in M.C. No. 2992/2010 by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore is set aside. Matter is remitted to the trial Court to permit the parties to lead additional evidence and if necessary, to lead evidence in regard to the medical condition of the respondent. Parties shall appear before the trial Court on 14.10.2014. Thereafter, the learned Judge shall try to dispose of the case within six months, thereafter.

At this stage, submission is made on behalf of the appellant that interim maintenance is not paid. Learned Counsel for the respondent fairly submits that the arrears of maintenance will be made good in the mean time.

Submission of both counsel is placed on record. There is no order as to costs.