Full-consent cohabitation after discovering fraud bars annulment under Section 12(1)(c).

The appellant-husband challenged the judgment dated 26 June 2025 and decree dated 7 July 2025 by which the Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi dismissed his petition under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking annulment of the marriage.

The parties married on 22 November 2017.

The husband alleged that the wife and her family had concealed her prior surgery, ovarian and fallopian-tube complications, severe anaemia, and chronic autoimmune disease, and that his consent to marriage was therefore obtained by fraud.

He claimed that he became aware of the concealed medical records only in October–November 2022, after which the wife left for her parental home.

Although the wife entered appearance, she neither filed a written statement nor participated in reconciliation proceedings and was debarred from filing her written statement.

The husband examined himself and one supporting witness, but no doctor was examined and the medical documents were photocopies marked only for identification.

The Family Court found that the husband had been aware of the wife’s medical condition since at least 2018, continued to live with her and participate in her treatment until 2022, and consequently dismissed the petition under Section 12(2)(a).

Whether the alleged concealment of the respondent-wife’s medical history and illness amounted to fraud concerning a material fact or circumstance under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, thereby vitiating the appellant-husband’s consent to the marriage.

Whether the petition for annulment was barred under Section 12(2)(a) because the appellant had discovered, or was aware of, the alleged fraud and thereafter continued to live with the respondent as her husband.

Whether the Family Court’s appreciation of the evidence and dismissal of the petition was perverse and warranted appellate interference under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act permits annulment where the petitioner’s consent was obtained by force or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent; however, the provision does not encompass every misrepresentation or concealment and is not to be applied by importing the contractual definition of fraud under the Contract Act.

Under Section 12(2)(a), a petition based on fraud cannot be entertained if it is filed more than one year after discovery of the fraud or if, after discovery, the petitioner continued to live with the other party with full consent.

On perversity, the Court relied on Arulvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206, holding that a finding is perverse where it ignores or excludes relevant evidence, considers irrelevant material, or is so irrational that no reasonable judicial mind could reach it.

It further relied on Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi, (2016) 14 SCC 197, for the principle that a mere different appreciation of evidence or inadequacy of evidence does not constitute perversity.

The High Court held that the Family Court’s conclusion was supported by the appellant’s own evidence.

The appellant stated both that he personally took the respondent to CMC Vellore for treatment and that her mother and brother had taken her there despite excluding him, creating a material contradiction.

His evidence and the medical records showed that he was aware of her serious health condition from 2018, not for the first time in November 2022.

He thereafter continued to reside with her and actively financed and participated in her medical treatment until 2022, satisfying the statutory bar under Section 12(2)(a)(ii).

Further, no medical expert established that the alleged prior surgery was connected with the later autoimmune condition, infertility, or any incurable disease, and the appellant’s medical documents were not properly proved beyond being marked for identification.

In these circumstances, the alleged concealment was not proved in the manner required for relief under Section 12(1)(c), and the Family Court’s findings were neither unsupported by evidence nor irrational.

The appellate challenge therefore did not meet the high threshold of perversity.

It held that the appellant failed to establish that his consent to the marriage had been obtained by fraud relating to a material fact under Section 12(1)(c), and that, in any event, his continued cohabitation with the respondent after knowledge of her medical condition attracted the bar under Section 12(2)(a)(ii).

The Family Court’s judgment dated 26 June 2025 and decree dated 7 July 2025 were affirmed, the appeal was dismissed, and any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.