Unrebutted medical evidence supported annulment where the spouse neither cross-examined nor testified.

The husband petitioned under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking to have the marriage solemnised on 31 August 2014 declared null and void.

He alleged that his wife displayed abnormal behaviour soon after the marriage and that her history of schizophrenia and prior treatment had been concealed before the marriage.

He relied on her medical records, including a psychological evaluation.

The wife denied having a mental illness and alleged that her distress arose from her treatment by her mother-in-law.

The Family Court allowed the petition, relying particularly on the medical report; the wife appealed.

1. Whether the Family Court’s decision to grant relief under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was supported by the evidence, including the medical report and the husband’s unchallenged testimony.

2. Whether the wife had rebutted the husband’s evidence or otherwise established a basis to interfere with the Family Court’s order.

Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides for a decree annulling a marriage where consent was obtained by force or fraud as to a material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent.

The Court also proceeded on the evidentiary basis that the husband’s testimony had not been tested in cross-examination and that the medical report, admitted without objection, supported his case.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court noted that the wife had filed a counter denying the allegations but had neither cross-examined the husband nor testified herself.

It treated the husband’s account as unrebutted and found that the unobjected-to medical report supported his claim, referring to its findings concerning below-average intellectual efficiency, poor recall, significant scores on paranoid and schizophrenic scales, and difficulties relating to marriage and family life.

On that record, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Family Court’s order.

It made no order as to costs.