Bombay High Court: The present writ petition was filed by the appellant-husband challenging the dismissal of his divorce petition which was filed on the ground of suppression of the disease of cerebral palsy by the family members of the respondent-wife. The Division Bench of Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Sandipkumar C. More*, JJ., opined that the Family Court erred in dismissing the petition of the husband on the ground that cerebral palsy only restricted the bodily movements and did not affect the behaviour of the person especially whether certificate obtained from the medical board clearly stated that it was a non-progressive intellectual deformity.
The Court held that the Family Court ought to have considered the aspect of suppression of an incurable disease by the family members. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Family Court and declared the marriage between the couple as null and void as the couple had only stayed together for 6 months and the wife was unable to perform her marital duties due to her medical conditions.
Background
The parties solemnised their marriage on 28-4-2018 and when they started cohabiting, the husband observed that wife had certain health issues. The wife used to sleep for a longer period, had been found urinating in bed and used to frequently fall unconscious due to which she could not complete her daily chores. The husband found her unresponsive to his talks and also showed abnormal behaviour and was even unable to perform her marital obligations.
Thus, the husband got the wife examined from a doctor and also took a second opinion from another doctor wherein both the doctors told that the wife was suffering from cerebral palsy which was an incurable disease and due to which her brain had not developed properly. On finding out her health issues, he felt cheated as he was not informed about her medical conditions before the marriage. Thereafter, the wife left the husband’s house and started living with her parents in the year 2018 itself.
Hence, the husband sent a notice to the wife, seeking divorce, to which the wife replied to the dissatisfaction of the husband. Therefore, the husband filed a divorce petition on 13-11-2018, on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’) and under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act, due to incurable mental disorder of cerebral palsy. The wife contended that she had previously disclosed that her hands were weak since birth, but was mentally fit for marriage and also performed marital obligations. She further claimed that it was the husband’s relative who had brought to her the marriage proposal.
The Family Court stated that there was no supporting evidence of cruelty as well as the husband failed to produce the medical records of the wife’s illness. It was also mentioned that the husband had admitted that the wife never portrayed any violent behaviour and had no incident which could suggest her mental illness. Additionally, the Family Court opined that the cerebral palsy disorder only affected bodily movements. Therefore, as the husband could not prove the mental disorder of the wife, the Family Court dismissed the divorce petition. Aggrieved by the same, the husband filed an appeal before the present Court.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court relied on Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad, 1951 SCC 136, and permitted the husband to seek nullity of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act as not even one year had passed since the solemnisation of marriage. The Court noted that the wife denied the allegation of any mental disorder but had accepted that she had health issues since birth. The wife claimed that the husband was made aware of the same, prior to the marriage and had brought it up now only because he was not interested in her.
The Court pointed out that even though the wife had denied any mental illness, she did not lead any evidence and even kept herself away from cross-examination. Therefore, it was only the husband’s evidence on record which formed the basis of the order passed by the Family Court. The Court observed that the finding of the Family Court, that the wife was ready to undergo the medical examination was entirely incorrect, as the application seeking for the medical examination of the wife was filed by the husband which was initially opposed by the wife but subsequently, agreed to undergo medical examination.
Further, the Court observed that the medical certificate given by Medical Board of Government Medical College, when the husband had gotten her wife examined, clearly mentioned that the wife was suffering from a non-progressive mild intellectual deformity of cerebral palsy. It also mentioned that the wife had adoptive functioning and was able to take care of self and others in supportive environment. Thus, the reasoning given by the Family Court of cerebral palsy not being a mental disorder and only a restriction to bodily movements was acutely incorrect.
The Court further opined that suppression of disease of cerebral palsy of the wife by her family members prior to the marriage, entitled the husband for seeking nullity of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act when the couple had cohabited only for 7 months. Hence, the Court opined that the Family Court erred in dismissing the petition of the husband by not considering the aspect of suppression of an incurable disease by the family members.
Accordingly, the Court held that Family Court erroneously observed that the said disease only restricts bodily movement when the report of the doctor from the Medical Board clearly stated otherwise. Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Family Court and declared the marriage between the parties as null and void as the couple had only stayed together for 7 months and the wife was unable to perform her marital duties due to her medical conditions.
[X v. Y, Family Court Apl. No. 92 of 2023, decided on: 22-9-2025]
*Judgement authored by- Justice Sandipkumar C. More
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Appellant- Amit A. Yadkikar, Akshay Kulkarni, Advocates
Advocate for the Respondent- Jitendra V. Patil, Advocate
