Case Title: Mukund Kumar Jha vs. Rita Jha
Court: High Court of Delhi
Coram: Justice Anil Kshetrapal & Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Judgment Reserved On: 19 August 2025
Judgment Delivered On: 27 August 2025
Case No.: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 49/2025
Background
- The appeal was filed under Section 19(1)(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis Hazari, dated 05.11.2024.
- The Family Court had declared the marriage between the appellant (wife) and respondent (husband) as null and void under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
Key Facts
- The marriage was solemnized on 21.04.2016 through an arranged match.
- The husband later discovered that the wife did not have a uterus or a left kidney, making her unable to conceive.
- Medical examinations and ultrasound reports dated 16.11.2017 confirmed the absence of a uterus.
- The wife initially denied knowledge of her medical condition but later admitted in cross-examination and in a handwritten acknowledgment dated 02.12.2017 that she was aware and even permitted the husband to remarry.
Appellant’s Contentions (Wife)
- Claimed she was unaware of her medical condition.
- Alleged that the husband had her uterus removed without consent.
- Argued that the concealment was not intentional and thus fraud was not established.
Respondent’s Contentions (Husband)
- Asserted that the wife and her family deliberately concealed the fact of her infertility.
- Claimed he always wanted children, and non-disclosure of infertility was material to consent.
- Produced medical reports and the wife’s own handwritten notes admitting her inability to conceive.
Court’s Observations
- Concealment of Material Fact
- The Court held that absence of a uterus directly affects procreation, a core aspect of marital life.
- Suppression of such a crucial medical fact amounted to fraud under Section 12(1)(c) HMA.
- Appellant’s Contradictory Statements
- Wife made inconsistent claims about pregnancy, miscarriage, and alleged surgeries.
- Her shifting stands undermined her credibility.
- No Cohabitation After Discovery
- After learning of the concealment on 16.11.2017, the couple did not resume normal marital relations.
- Thus, the bar under Section 12(2)(a)(ii) HMA (condonation) did not apply.
- Legal Precedents Considered
- The Court relied on various judgments, including:
- Vandana J. Kasliwal v. Jitendra N. Kasliwal (2006)
- Pradeep Ambhore v. Pallavi Ambhore (2017)
- Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat (2013)
- The Court relied on various judgments, including:
Decision
- The High Court upheld the Family Court’s findings.
- The marriage was declared null and void under Section 12(1)(c) HMA.
- The appeal was dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Key Takeaways
- Concealment of a serious medical condition affecting procreation constitutes fraud under Section 12(1)(c) HMA.
- Procreation is considered an integral aspect of marital life under Indian law.
- Intentional suppression of such facts makes the marriage voidable.
