-1- 2025:CGHC:5460 NAFR HIGH Court OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 99 of 2025 Rakesh Singh S/o Kumar Singh Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Amapara, Balod, Tehsil And District Balod (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus Smt. Bhagyashree Sahu D/o Shri Purushottam Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Vijaynagar Bank Colony, Durg Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.). ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30.01.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Balod in Civil Suit No.122A/2023. 3. Brief facts of the present case are as under:- A. The petitioner/husband filed a suit under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act, 1955) to declare the marriage voidable solemnized between the parties (petitioner & respondent). It is stated that the marriage -2- between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 03.05.2023 at Durg. B. It is further stated that the respondent/wife denied having physical relations with the petitioner and she informed the petitioner that she was suffering from a disease Polycystic Ovarian Disease (for short, PCOD) and undergoing treatment for the last 15 years. C. It is also stated that she is incapable of procuring children and her menstrual cycle also comes after taking medication at an interval of several months. D. It is also stated that the respondent is suffering from hormonal imbalance and she has joined a group namely, Prajapati Brahma Kumari Sansthan. E. It is further stated that the disease PCOD was concealed by the family members of the respondent before marriage. F. It is further stated that after 20 - 25 days of the marriage, the respondent wife left her matrimonial house and since then she has been staying in her parental house. G. The respondent filed a reply and denied the allegations. She pleaded that at the time of marriage, the parents of the respondent provided various household articles in the form of dowry which includes car, household materials, jewellery, sofa- set etc. H. She stated that she is capable of becoming a mother; she made allegations that, after sometime of the marriage, the petitioner and his family members started demanding money. I. Further, when she fell ill, she was not provided with treatment -3- and on account of the non-providing treatment, her health condition severely deteriorated. Therefore, she returned to her parents' house. J. It is also pleaded that she was working at Swami Atmanand School at Durg, but the petitioner and her family members pressurized her to leave/resign from the job. K. An application under Section 39 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (for short, the Act, 2023) for complete physical examination of the respondent from the gynecologist was also filed by the petitioner to prove the fact as stated in the application. L. The respondent filed a reply and categorically stated that PCOD is not a disease and does not prevent to conception of a child. It is also stated that there is no need to conduct a medical examination. M. The learned trial Court vide order dated 15.01.2025 rejected the application made by the petitioner/husband. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the learned trial Court ought to have accepted the fact that the respondent is suffering from the disease PCOD and is not capable of conceiving a child. In the absence of the opinion of the medical expert, it would not be possible for the petitioner to prove his case before the learned Family Court; therefore, the learned Family Court should have allowed the application. He would contend that the respondent and his family members concealed the fact of the PCOD disease prior to marriage; thus, he would pray to allow this petition and to quash the order passed by the learned Family Court. -4- 5. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and went through the documents available on record. 6. The PCOD disease is a hormonal disorder that affects women of reproductive age. It is characterized by enlarged ovaries containing multiple small cysts, irregular menstrual cycles and hormonal imbalances. On account of genetic factors, insulin resistance, hormonal imbalances, poor lifestyle etc, this disease is caused to a woman. However, lifestyle changes (healthy diet, regular exercise, weight management), medications and fertility treatments can help prevent complications and improve the health of the person suffering from PCOD disease and conceive a child. 7. The petitioner during the pendency of the civil suit to declare the marriage voidable moved an application under Section 39 of the Indian Evidence Act, 2023 for medical examination of the respondent stating that she is suffering from PCOD disease. In reply to the application, the respondent admitted the fact that she suffers from PCOD disease, but the same is curable since she has been undergoing treatment. It is also stated in the reply that she was not provided proper treatment by the family members of the petitioner due to which her health condition got seriously deteriorated. Therefore, she went to her parents’ house and was provided treatment. It is also stated that the fact with regard to the disease was narrated by the respondent and her family members to the petitioner prior to marriage. 8. Normally, the marriage is considered a deep committed bond between -5- two individuals. If either spouse is suffering from any kind of disease or problems or physical and mental issues, it is the duty of other spouse to support or provide medical and physical assistance. 9. In the present case, the petitioner moved an application before the learned Family Court under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage, instead of taking care of his wife. The learned Family Court taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the medical condition of the respondent, rejected the application; thus, in the opinion of this Court, no good ground is involved in the present case for interference by this Court. 10. Thus, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim