P. vs K. on 15 July, 1981
"A person who feely consents to a solemnization of the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act with the other party in accordance with customary ceremonies, that is, with knolwdge of the nature of the ceremonies and intention to marry, cannot object to the validity of the marriage on the ground of fraudulent representation or concealment. Moreover, in the present case, the fraud alleged is non-disclosure or consealment of epilepsy from which the respondent was suffering since before her marriage, and faise representation that she was healthy. I have found that the type of epilepsy she was suffering from is curable. I am also, therefore, of the opinion that non-disclosure or concealment of epilepsy from which the respondent was suffering since before her marriage, and faise representation that she was healthy. I have found that the type of epilepsy she was suffering from is curable. I am also, therefore, of the opinion that non-disclosure or concealment of such curable epilepsy and false representation that the respondent was healthy does not amount to frand within the meaning of that word used in Sec. 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner, therefore, has failed to prove that his consent was obtained to prove that his consent was obtained by fraud." It is therefore, clear htat according to the learned Judge the fraud contemplaled was such as must be regarding the ceremonyor the identity of the respondent and not as regards the condition of the respondent or her life at the time of or before the marriage. This judgment was followed in David v. Kalpana (1975) 78 Bom LR 65, which was a case under the Indian Divorce Act.