Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.68 seconds)
Smt. Shanthi vs V. Vijayaraghavan on 13 March, 2002 cites

Sujatha vs C.D. Hariharan on 27 February, 1995

19. A Division Bench of our High Court in SUJATHA VS. C.D. HARIHARAN [1995 (2) M.L.J. 326], in reference to the question of nullity of marriage on the ground of inducement and concealment of material fact, it was held that to have a cause of action for annulling the marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, to constitute fraud, there must be some abuse of the confidential position, some intentional imposition or some deliberate concealment of material facts which are fundamental basis to the marriage contract. Concealment, if any, must be of such a nature which affects the ordinary marital life of the parties. The Division Bench further held that unless it is incurable, any concealment of the same will not amount to concealment of material fact which will give a cause of action for annulling the marriage. In this case, there is a clear evidence by the expert doctor that the wife is not suffering from any incurable disease. On the contrary, the doctor has categorically stated that there is no impediment for the wife to maintain family life and that the disease is completely curable. Therefore, the husband has not established that prior to the marriage, the wife was suffering from a mental disease of such a nature and that the said fact was suppressed and not disclosed to him and that she continues to have such kind of a disease, in order to seek for annulment of the marriage.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Smt. Alka Sharma vs Abhinesh Chandra Sharma on 4 February, 1991

20. Counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment of a learned Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in ALKA SHARMA VS. ABINESH CHANDRA SHARMA (A.I.R. 1991 M.P. 205). The learned Judge in that case took the view that the court can nullify the marriage if either condition or both conditions contemplated existed due to the mental disorder and the word 'and' between the expressions 'unfit for marriage' and 'procreation of children' in Section 5(ii)(b) of the Act should be read as 'and/or'. The argument in that case opposing the petition was that it is not only sufficient to establish that the party is suffering from mental disorder to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage, he must also prove that she is incapable for procreation of children. In the absence of such a plea, it was argued that the petition was not maintainable. We need not go into the 'creative interpretation' of the statute by the learned Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, since this judgment may not be any assistance to the respondent in this case as in our view, the husband has not established that the wife is suffering from a mental disorder to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage. We have taken the view from the pleadings and evidence that there was no such kind of suppression or fraud in reference to the mental condition of the wife and that as a matter of fact, it has not been proved that she was suffering from such a mental disorder to the extent that she is unfit for marriage. Suffice it is to reiterate the view of N.R. Raghavachariar in reference to mental disorder that the question that has to be answered is whether a particular person is in a position to comprehend and appreciate the significance of the marriage and its effects and obligations.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 11 - D M Dharmadhikari - Full Document
1   2 Next