PREM RANJEET KUMAR SURAJ vs MUNNI KUMARI ALIAS MONI

Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:31355-DB)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A No. 64 of 2021
Prem Ranjeet Kumar Suraj, aged about 38 years, S/o Mahendra
Das, resident of Qrs. No. 3300, Sector-12/C, Bokaro Steel City,
P.O. & P.S. Sector-12 District Bokaro ... Appellant

Versus

Munni Kumari @ Moni, aged about 29 years, D/o Permanand
Das, resident of village Ghusaith, Piri Bazar, P.O. Abhaypur, P.S
Piri Bazar, Dist. Lakhisarai, Bihar ... Respondent

---------
CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ PRASAD
---------

For the Appellant: Md Shaukat Eqbal, Advocate
Md Shadab Eqbal, Advocate
Mr Ankit Raj, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr Maneesh Kumar, Advocate
---------
Reserved on: 14/10/2026 Pronounced on:27/10/2026

Per : Manoj Prasad, J.
1. Heard Md Shaukat Eqbal, Advocate who appears with Md
Shadab Eqbal and Mr. Ankit Raj, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Maneesh Kumar, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant namely Prem
Ranjeet Kumar Suraj impleading the Opposite Party as
respondent namely Munni Kumari challenging the judgment

Page 1 of 9

and decree passed by the Court of the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 02 of 2017, which
was instituted by the present appellant under Section 12(1) (b)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging that the marriage was
performed in contravention of the condition specified in
Section 5 (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, i.e. the respondent
was incapable of giving a valid consent to it, in consequence
of unsoundness of mind and even if, capable of giving a valid
consent, has been suffering from a mental disorder of such a
kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the
procreation of children.
3. The learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and
decree, dismissed the plaintiff's suit on contest, however,
without costs. The learned Trial Court held that the
respondent was not suffering from any disease prior to her
marriage, and there was no evidence of any mental illness,
nor was she suffering from any other disease as alleged by
the appellant.
4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant filed
the application for declaring the marriage as null and void,
alleging, inter alia, that the marriage between the parties was
solemnised on 17.11.2016, and after marriage, they lived
together at Bokaro as husband and wife.

Page 2 of 9

5. However, the appellant discovered that the respondent was
incapable of cohabiting with the appellant and that it appeared
that she was suffering from some unsoundness of mind or
some Neuro problem which was existing before the marriage,
which fact was concealed and marriage was got to be
solemnised. It is also alleged that the respondent was
suffering from epilepsy/paralysis. On account of this mental
disorder/Neuro problem, marriage could not be consummated.
Further, the respondent informed the present appellant that
she had never consented to the marriage as she was in love
with another boy. She stated that the marriage was only
solemnized due to pressure from her family. It is stated that
the cause of action arose on 17.11.2016 when the marriage
was solemnized, and on subsequent occasions when the
respondent committed fraud and misrepresentation against
the appellant. The cause of action finally arose on 07.12.2016
when the respondent returned to her parental home.
Consequently, the present suit was instituted on 04.01.2017.
6. The respondent appeared and contested the claim of the
appellant, alleging, inter-alia, that the entire set of allegations
are false and baseless. Defending her case, she alleges that
she was subjected to cruelty by the appellant for which a case
Under Section 498A and other sections of the IPC were also

Page 3 of 9

instituted. Allegations of mental illness or recurrent attack of
epilepsy/paralysis is also denied and allegations of having
made any attempt to commit suicide is also denied. It is also
stated that no fact was ever concealed before marriage and
the allegations are all concocted and baseless.
7. Based on the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed
several issues, including the issue as to whether the
respondent was incapable of giving valid consent due to her
unsoundness of mind or has been suffering from a mental
disorder of such a kind and to such an extent as to be unfit for
marriage and procreation of children. One additional issue
was also there, i.e. whether the respondent was subjected to
cruelty and torture by the petitioner and his family members
for demand of additional dowry.
8. Based on the issues and pleadings, witnesses were examined
on behalf of the parties. Two witnesses were examined on
behalf of the appellant, including the appellant himself and his
father and three witnesses were examined by the respondent,
which included the respondent, her father and her brother.
Two medical prescriptions dated 27.5.2017 and 11.7.2017 of
the respondent of Shree Krishna Sewa Sadan, Lakhi Sarai,
are marked as Ext. 1, while a photocopy of the scan report

Page 4 of 9

dated 27.05.2017 is marked as Ext. 1/1. No documentary
evidence is there on behalf of the respondent.
9. The learned Trial Court, after considering the oral and
documentary evidence, concluded that the suit, as framed,
was maintainable and that the appellant had a valid cause of
action. However, on consideration of the remaining issues,
i.e., Issue Nos. 3, 4 & 5, the learned Trial Court concluded
that the appellant failed to prove the existence of any illness,
particularly the illness alleged by the appellant in the
application for declaring the marriage null and void under
Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned Trial Court
also observed that, in the lengthy cross-examination of the
respondent, nothing could be discerned to establish the
appellant's case, and accordingly dismissed the appellant's
suit.
10. Md. Shaukat Eqbal, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant during the course of argument, submits that the fact
that the marriage has not yet been consummated is not in
dispute, and that the respondent was living with her parents is
also not in dispute. The marriage was solemnised, but it could
not be consummated. Mental illness was a fact discovered by
the appellant while he was staying with the respondent.
However, in all fairness, learned counsel concedes that there

Page 5 of 9

is no documentary evidence regarding the respondent's
mental illness. It is stated that the marriage was solemnised in
the year 2016, and despite the lapse of about 10 years, to
date the marriage has not been consummated, as the
respondent is unfit for consummation of marriage and is
suffering from various mental illnesses. Hence, the prayer is
to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment
and declaring the marriage between the parties to be nullity in
the eyes of law.
11. Per contra, Mr. Maneesh Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent, submits that an
entirely new plea is taken during the course of argument.
Under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, certain
marriages which fall within the purview of the provisions
contained in that Section are voidable at the instance of the
party affected. In this case, the marriage could have been
avoided, and apparently the appellant had taken steps by
instituting the suit for a declaration that the marriage is null
and void. Therefore, in this appeal, he cannot take the ground
of dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, which is not
within the ambit and scope of hearing and determination by
this Court. So far as the case of the appellant is concerned,
that the respondent was suffering from mental illness and was

Page 6 of 9

incapacitated to give consent, there is no material on the
record, and hence the prayer is to dismiss the appeal.
12. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, the only
point for determination which falls for our consideration is
whether the appellant has proved by sufficient evidence
that the respondent was incapable of giving valid consent
to marriage, or was suffering from any mental illness, i.e.,
unsoundness of mind, so as to render her incapable of
giving valid consent, or that she was unfit for procreation
of a child.
13. The above point for determination requires our
consideration. It is true that there is pleading to that effect, but
the law is settled that pleading is not a substitute for proof and
facts pleaded, if not proved, are of no consequence.
14. Admittedly, as fairly conceded by the learned counsel for
the appellant, there is no documentary evidence on record to
corroborate the allegations of mental illness against the
respondent. The two documents marked as Ext. 1 and 1/1,
being copies of medical prescriptions, are not indicative of any
history of mental illness. The report of Shree Krishna Sewa
Sadan is merely an ultrasonography report of a gravid uterus,
and the impression shows a single intrauterine gestation
corresponding to a gestational age of 29 weeks and two days.

Page 7 of 9

Under those circumstances, these documents in no way
corroborate the case of the appellant.
15. On the other hand, the respondent has been examined as
a witness, respondent witness no. 3, before the Trial Court. In
her examination-in-chief on affidavit, she has supported her
contentions as per her defence, and she has been subjected
to lengthy cross-examination, which continued for three days,
and has stood the test of cross-examination, with no material
coming to support the case of the appellant.
16. If the appellant’s pleading is also examined, it is evident
that the appellant has stated that the respondent informed the
appellant that she had never consented to this marriage,
rather she was in love with another boy. Such a contention in
the appellant’s pleading, in fact, displaces the allegations of
mental illness or mental incapacity. Ext. 1/1 also demolishes
the appellant’s claim under Section 5 (ii)(b) of the Hindu
Marriage Act.
17. Having considered the materials on record and the
arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we are of the
considered view that the point for determination, as
formulated by us, stands answered in favour of the
respondent and against the appellant. Consequently, it is held
that the appellant failed to make out any case under Section

Page 8 of 9

12 of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 5 (ii)(b) of the
said Act.
18. This appeal is therefore dismissed, however, without costs.



(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)



(Manoj Prasad, J.)

October 27, 2026
N.A.F.R.
Anjali/-
Uploaded on:27/10/2026



Page 9 of 9