[2026:JHHC:24995-DB] Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 141 of 2025 Amardeep Anand, aged about 36 years, S/o Murlidhar Prasad, R/o-218B 3, Durga Nivas, Shree Ram Path, Kishore Ganj, P.O. and P.S. Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi, 834001, Jharkhand. … … Appellant/Plaintiff Versus Manisha Kumari, aged about 30 years, w/o Amardeep Anand, D/o late Manoj Kumar Poddar, R/o Ward No.-6, Chandan Pandey Tola, P.O. & P.S. Chandan, Dist.-Banka, 813102, Bihar. … … Respondent/Defendant ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Hemant Jain, Advocate For the Respondent : None ---------------------------- 07/Dated: 18th August, 2026 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. At the outset, it needs to refer herein that vide order dated 18.09.2025, notice was issued upon the respondent and in pursuance thereof, the respondent had put her appearance through her counsel as would be evident from the order dated 24.11.2025. 2. Today, when the matter has been taken up, even on repeated call, none is present to represent the respondent, as such, this Court has thought it proper to hear the matter on merit. 3. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the order/judgment dated 26.06.2025 and decree signed on 07.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-1, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 808 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the learned court has dismissed the suit for decree of nullity of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the appellant. [2026:JHHC:24995-DB] Page | 2 Factual Matrix 4. The brief facts of the case as per the original matrimonial suit needs to be referred herein which is as under:- 2.1 The case of appellant, in brief is that marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 22.11.2017 at Hariom Palace, Deoghar according to Hindu rites and rituals and after marriage when the respondent was heartily welcomed in the family of plaintiff, the respondent remained indifferent and callous towards the love and affection and she also denied to consummate the marriage on one or different pretext, thereafter the appellant somehow managed the adverse behaviour of his wife as well as started tolerating the negative condition of her with a hope that everything will be fine in upcoming near future. 2.2 Thereafter, the couple went on for honeymoon trip on 24.01.2018 to Andaman & Nicobar Island as the appellant was of the view that the behaviour of the wife will be neutralized and they may be able to fulfill the obligation of marriage. Thereafter while being there, the appellant found a deep cut mark like surgery on the stomach of the respondent, when she has been asked about the cut then the respondent did not reply with any satisfactory answer whereby the appellant also did not force her for getting the reply and had believed on the version of his wife. 2.3 After coming back from the trip, the respondent made a routine for visiting her paternal house on one or different pretext, and on being asked she used to reply that she cannot do household works therefore she wants to take rest whereby she will be comfortable at her paternal home as she does not have to work over there. It had been contended by the appellant that the respondent always used to fall ill whereby one day she fainted being unconscious in the kitchen and was taken to hospital where her blood count or hemoglobin was only 4.5 whereas the average level for the female is between 11.5 to 16. 2.4 The appellant informed about the medical condition of the respondent to her brothers whereby he had been told by them not to worry as [2026:JHHC:24995-DB] Page | 3 everything will be fine and had said either to give her medicine or they will come to Ranchi and will donate blood to her. The treatment of the respondent was being done in Ranchi but respondent’s family was not satisfied and they were of the view that she be taken to CMC Vellore and on seeing the medical condition and health deterioration the appellant got ready for the further treatment at CMC Vellore and had took the respondent along with his family members to the said hospital and in the meanwhile mother of the appellant also got ill due to which the appellant got worried and become conscious for her health too. Thereafter, the appellant was being told by them that he need not to worry as they will take her along with them to CMC Vellore, and had advised the appellant to be in Ranchi and find some job as in between he had also been fired from his job due to regular leave for visiting the doctor as well as pathology. 2.5 The appellant agreed to bear the expense for the medical check-up and expense of her treatment whatever and whenever will be advised by the doctors and whenever the appellant asked about the medical report from his wife the family members of respondent denied by saying everything is fine, he need not to worry for her. The appellant nearly borne a sum of around Rs. 10 lakhs for treatment of the respondent and on travelling expense of respondent as well as her family members while travelling to Vellore for her check-up. 2.6 Thereafter, the respondent again fell seriously ill while she was with appellant whereby she was taken to hospital on 10.10.2021 and was discharged on 24.10.2021 from whereupon she went to her paternal home i.e. at District- Banka directly from the hospital along with her family member stating that she will soon get recovered if she will get complete rest whereupon a date has been fixed for the marriage of her brother in the month of April, 2022 on which appellant has also taken part with a view that he will take the respondent along with him to Ranchi after the marriage and soon after the marriage of her own brother the marriage of her cousin brother got fixed in the month of May, 2022 due to which the respondent again refused to come back to Ranchi and lastly in June, 2022 the respondent came back to Ranchi. [2026:JHHC:24995-DB] Page | 4 2.7 When the respondent came back to her matrimonial home from her paternal home then the appellant told her about planning of baby to which the respondent denied whereby, she said that she is not ready for it as well she started behaving differently. 2.8 It has been stated by the appellant that one day the appellant and the respondent had a small fight which generally used to take place in between a wedded couple whereby after which she went to her paternal home. 2.9 In the month of October, 2022 while the appellant was cleaning his room he found some of the old medical reports of the respondent of the year 2011 depicting about the operation of cyst and ovary and the appellant also found medical report and some prescription in which it was clearly depicted that the left fallopian tube and ovary of respondent was blocked that means only one ovary and one fallopian tube was functional and this very fact was concealed at time of marriage and consent of plaintiff as well as his entire family members was taken on fraud and misrepresentation of fact. Thereafter he had taken each medical opinion seriously and in the month of November, 2022 he went to a doctor along with those reports whereby he found out that she was suffering from one non-curable chronic "AUTOIMMUNE DAH(ANA 4+ HOMOGENOUS) PROBABLE LUPUS NEPHRITIS, PROBABLE UNDIFFRENTIATED CONNECTIVE TISSUE DISORDER". Thereafter, the appellant also found that if the respondent will be on constant medical treatment then only she will be in good state of health whereby doctor has recommended her MMF which basically is a steroid, and if she will be taking steroid then she will not able to conceive whereas if she will stop taking those medicines then her body will collapse and after coming to know about all these facts it has caused a major mental jerk to appellant as well as to his entire family members. It has been stated that when the appellant contacted to family members of the respondent then they accepted that they had hidden all the facts but after that they started threatening the appellant that if any negligence is there in medical treatment of the respondent, then they will implicate him in [2026:JHHC:24995-DB] Page | 5 false criminal case as well as kill him and destroy his entire family and soon after that the appellant went to the paternal home of the respondent at district Banka in the month end of November, 2022 to talk to her and to clarify the things whereupon he was informed by all the medical issues that were hidden from him by her and her family members. It has been stated that when negotiation of marriage is taking place there is talk between both sides, there may be some exaggeration but if non-disclosure of material fact is there it amounts to fraud and similarly, in the present petition the surgery, the non-functional of left ovary and blockage of fallopian tube has left to fraud as non-disclosure before the marriage. It has been stated that consent given by the appellant at the time of marriage was without knowledge of the facts which stands vitiated and tainted as well as resulted to fraud as the same has been purposely been hidden from the appellant. 5. Based on the aforesaid facts, the appellant/petitioner had filed suit for nullity of marriage u/s 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Family Court. 6. On being noticed, the respondent/wife appeared and both the parties were directed to appear physically for reconciliation but despite giving several opportunities, the respondent neither appeared for reconciliation nor filed written statement and thereafter, vide order dated 06.09.2024 she was debarred from filing written statement. 7. The learned Family Judge framed the issue which is as follows: “Now the main issue for consideration before this court is whether the defendant was suffering from non-curable chronic disease and by suppressing this fact she solemnized marriage with the plaintiff on 22.11.2017 and whether the marriage between plaintiff and defendant is liable to be dissolved on the ground of nullity?” 8. The evidences have been made on behalf of the appellant. Thereafter, considering the same, the judgment has been passed dismissing the suit by holding that the application for decree of nullity of marriage u/s 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act of petitioner cannot be entertained and the appellant is not entitled for decree of nullity as claimed for. Against the said judgment the present appeal has been preferred by the petitioner/appellant/husband. [2026:JHHC:24995-DB] Page | 6 Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/husband: 9. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant/husband that the factual aspect which was available before the learned court supported by the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant/husband has not properly been considered and as such, the judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 10. It has been contended that the learned Family Court has wrongly considered the fact that the plaintiff was aware of the chronic disease of the respondent in the year 2018 rather the appellant came to know of the true and complete nature of the ailment and its consequence only in the month of October- November, 2022 upon discovery of the concealed medical records of the year 2011 and subsequent consultation with the doctor. 11. It has also been contended that the respondent did put her appearance before the learned Family Court but never contested the matter on merits nor did she file any written statement or adduced any evidence in rebuttal of the appellant’s case, as such, the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact the pleading and evidence put forth by the appellant stood undisputed, hence, the original suit ought not to have been dismissed. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers from perversity, as such, not sustainable in the eyes of law. Analysis: 13. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment. 14. It has been stated by the appellant in pleading that the appellant married the respondent on 22.11.2017 and alleged that from the very beginning she was indifferent, refused consummation, and frequently absented herself at her paternal home. Despite efforts such as a honeymoon trip and bearing heavy medical expenses for her treatment at Ranchi and CMC Vellore, the appellant claimed that the respondent’s health issues persisted, she avoided household responsibilities, and her family concealed medical reports. He [2026:JHHC:24995-DB] Page | 7 stated that he spent nearly ₹10 lakhs on her treatment and travel, yet was denied access to her medical records and subjected to threats from her family. 15. It has further been stated that later, in October 2022, the appellant discovered old medical reports revealing prior surgery, blocked fallopian tube, and ovarian dysfunction, along with a diagnosis of chronic autoimmune disease (probable lupus nephritis and connective tissue disorder). He contended that these material facts were deliberately suppressed at the time of marriage, amounting to fraud and misrepresentation under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. According to him, the concealment of her inability to conceive and her serious medical condition caused grave mental distress to him and his family, thereby he had filed the petition for nullity of marriage before the learned Family Court but the aforesaid fact has not been appreciated by the Family Court in right prospective and erroneously dismissed the suit, 16. The case has been heard at length. 17. The admitted fact herein is that the appellant filed the suit for annulment of his marriage with the respondent by filing an application under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and accordingly, issue has been framed by the learned Family Court that whether the defendant was suffering from non-curable chronic disease and by suppressing this fact she solemnized marriage with the plaintiff on 22.11.2017 and whether the marriage between plaintiff and defendant is liable to be dissolved on the ground of nullity. 18. Now adverting to the factual aspect of the case as well as impugned judgment. 19. It is evident that the evidence has been led on behalf of the appellant before the Family Court. For better appreciation, the evidence led on behalf of the appellant is being referred as under: (i) P.W-2, Amardeep Anand is the appellant who has been examined as P.W.-2 who has deposed that he works as an Account Executive in Ranchi. He was married on 22.11.2017 with Manisha Kumari as per Hindu rites and rituals at Deoghar Hariom Palace. He has stated [2026:JHHC:24995-DB] Page | 8 that after marriage he noticed that a cut mark of operation was on the stomach of defendant and when he wanted to know about it, the respondent did not reply satisfactory. On 18.06.2018 the respondent, Manisha Kumari, suddenly fell unconscious and when he took her to the doctor, her hemoglobin level was found to be 4.5 then he called the brother of respondent namely Vikas Poddar and told him the whole thing, the brother of respondent took this matter in a casual manner and said that he would come and donate blood and he came and donated blood on next day. He has stated that even after that there was no improvement in the condition of respondent and then he wanted to take her to Vellore but the mother and brother of respondent came to him on 08.10.2018 and took the respondent with him to Vellore and all the expenses of which were borne by him which amounted to approximately Rs. 10,00,000/-. He used to send the respondent along with his brother to Vellore on interval of every three months and all the expenses were borne by him. He has stated that whenever he spoke of going to Vellore with respondent, her family members used to say that they will go and told him to look after his work. He has stated that respondent went to her maternal home at Banka, Bihar on 24.10.2021 to attend a marriage ceremony and in October 2022 when he and his father were at home and respondent was at her maternal home, while cleaning his house for Dipawali, he found all the copies of the medical examination which were hidden by his wife dated 28.12.2011. In that medical report there was mention of a disease called UNDIFFERENTIATED CONNECTIVE TISSUE DISEASE ANEMIA. He has stated that in November 2022 he met a reputed gynecologist in Bariatu with said medical report. He has stated that when he came to know that defendant does not produce hemoglobin cells and her LEFT FALLOPIAN TUBE AND OPRATION OF CYST AND OVARY was also damaged then he understood why there was a cut mark on the stomach. He has stated that the respondent and his family members hid the truth from him and married with him. He has stated that when he stated the matter to respondent and his family members [2026:JHHC:24995-DB] Page | 9 then in October 2022 itself his wife left him and went to her maternal home. He has stated that respondent got married him by deceit and fraud and by concealing the medical report of respondent from him. He has stated that respondent was not able to provide him physical pleasure even after marriage and even physical relationship could not be established between them. He has stated that respondent married with him through deceit and fraud and he was repeatedly threatened by respondent and his family members and threatened to implicate him in a false case. He has stated that he came to know about his wife's ailment in November, 2022. There was no good relation between them since 2017 to 2022 and no child begotten out of their wedlock. (ii) It has been taken note in the impugned order that on repeated call no one turned up on behalf of respondent to cross examine the P.W.-1 and thus he was discharged without cross examination. Further on recall dated 25.03.2025 this witness has stated that he has filed photocopy of marriage card and on his identification, it has been marked "X" for identification. He has stated that in the year 2011 the operation of cyst and ovary of respondent was made which was done prior to marriage which was concealed from him and due to such operation, her ovary was damaged and on his identification photocopies of documents regarding treatment and operation of respondent has been marked "X/1" for identification. He has stated that after marriage when the respondent became unconscious and fell down in the kitchen then he took her to Seva Sadan on 18.06.2018 and admitted her for which he filed photocopies of medical prescription and discharge summary and on his identification, it has been marked "X/2" for identification. He has stated that thereafter respondent was brought to CMC Vellore for better treatment for which he filed photocopies of medical prescription and on his identification, it has been marked "X/3" for identification. He has stated that respondent again in the year 2022 became unconscious and she was admitted in Raj Hospital, Ranchi for which he submitted medical prescription and, on his identification, it has been marked [2026:JHHC:24995-DB] Page | 10 "X/4" for identification. He has stated that on 21.12.2021 he took the defendant before Dr. Vindyanchal Gupta at Bariatu where he came to know that respondent is suffering from incurable disease and on his identification the photocopy of medical prescription has been marked "X/5" for identification. (iii) P.W.1, Uday Kumar Singh has stated in his evidence that he is friend of the appellant and he works as Accounts Executive at Ranchi. He has stated that marriage of appellant was solemnized with respondent on 22.11.2017 according to Hindu rites and rituals Deoghar and he attended the Baarat. He has stated that on 18.06.2018 suddenly the wife of appellant became unconscious then the appellant admitted his wife at Nagarmal Modi Seva Sadan, Ranchi and he was also called and on call of appellant he reached there where he knew that the hemoglobin level of the respondent is below 5. He has stated that the appellant took the respondent at Vellore for better treatment and he came to know from the appellant that the respondent is suffering from incurable disease prior to marriage and her parents have concealed this fact. He has stated that the respondent left the appellant in August, 2022 and went to her maika. He came to know from the appellant that the respondent never became a mother. He has stated that the respondent and her family members suppressed the material fact that she is suffering from incurable disease and has solemnized marriage with appellant which is legally false and liable to be null and void. 20. The learned Family Judge has appreciated the evidences led on behalf of the appellant as also the submission made in the pleading and on consideration of the aforesaid, has dismissed the suit filed by appellant by holding that the application for decree of nullity of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act of the appellant cannot be entertained and the appellant is not entitled for decree of nullity as claimed for. 21. The learned counsel for the appellant/husband has argued that the evidence led before the learned Family Court has not properly been considered and [2026:JHHC:24995-DB] Page | 11 as such, the judgment suffers from perversity, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 22. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant on the issue of perversity needs to refer herein the interpretation of the word “perverse” as has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206 while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment reads as under: “24. The expression “perverse” has been dealt with in a number of cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [(2001) 1 SCC 501] this Court observed that the expression “perverse” means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity. 25. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. [AIR 1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that “perverse finding” means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341] the Court observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the findings of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings. 26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58] the Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the Court observed that a “perverse verdict” may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court defined “perverse” as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct, etc. 27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner: 1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 6th Edn. “Perverse.—Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable.” [2026:JHHC:24995-DB] Page | 12 2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, International Edn. Perverse.—Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable. 3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn. Perverse.—Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law. 4. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.) Perverse.—Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant. 5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Edn. “Perverse.—A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence.”” 23. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that if any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law then it will come under the purview of perverse order. Further “perverse verdict" may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. 24. Thus, “perversity” refers to a finding or decision so unreasonable or irrational that no reasonable person acting judicially could have reached it. It signifies a gross and unreasonable assessment of evidence or law by a court. 25. Further Perversity is a high threshold for intervention, distinguishing it from a mere error of fact or law. The "safest approach on perversity is the classic approach on the reasonable man's inference on the facts but inadequacy of evidence or a different reading of evidence is not perversity, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi, (2016) 14 SCC 197. 26. Since the present petition has been instituted by the appellant-husband seeking annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it becomes necessary to advert to the essence of the said provision. 27. It needs to refer herein that the Section 7 of the Act 1955 relates to the ceremonies for the Hindu Marriage to be performed with Customary Rites of either party including Saptapadi i.e. taking of seven steps by bridegroom [2026:JHHC:24995-DB] Page | 13 and bride jointly before the sacred fire to complete the marriage. The marriage shall be declared null and void at the option of either of the parties if it contravenes any of the provisions specified in Clause (i), (iv) & (v) of Section 5 of the said Act. 28. Section 12 of the Act, which is pertinent in the present case, can be resorted to either of the parties for annulling the marriage as the grounds set fourth therein are satisfied. Section 12 of the Act is quoted below: “12. Voidable marriages. - (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely: (a) that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotence of the respondent; or (b) that the marriage is in contravention of the condition specified in clause (ii) of section 5; or (c) that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner was required under section 5 as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act 1978 (2 of 1978), the consent of such guardian was obtained by force or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent; or (d) that the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner. (2) Notwithstanding any thing contained in sub-section (1), no petition for annulling a marriage: (a) on the ground specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained if: (i) the petition is presented more than one year after the force had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered; or (ii) the petitioner has, with his or her full consent, lived with the other party to the marriage as husband or wife after the force had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered; (b) On the ground specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless the Court is satisfied: (i) that the petitioner was at the time of the marriage ignorant of the facts alleged; (ii) that proceedings have been instituted in the case of a marriage solemnised before the commencement of this Act within one year of such commencement and in the case of marriages solemnised after such commencement within one year from the date of the marriage; and (iii) that marital intercourse with the consent of the petitioner has not taken place since the discovery by the petitioner of the existence of the said ground” [2026:JHHC:24995-DB] Page | 14 29. Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act embodies grounds on which a marriage can be declared void and annulled by a decree of nullity. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of the said section provides for such annulment, when the consent of the petitioner is obtained by force or fraud under circumstances mentioned in the said Clause. It is settled position of law that Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act does not deal with fraud in a general way, nor deals with every misrepresentation or concealment, the object of which may be fraudulent. 30. It needs to refer herein that under the Hindu Law, a marriage is not a contract but sacrament. The Hindu Marriage Act has no doubt made an inroad into the close preserve of the ancient Hindu Law strongly suggesting the marriage as sacrament and not contract which still goes strong. The fraud contemplated by Section 12 of the said Act is not required to be interpreted in tune with the definition engrafted under Section 17 of the Contract Act. Both the Hindu Marriage Act and Contract Act are not pari materia as the former deals with marriages and the other deals with contract and commerce. Therefore, the definition of fraud given under the Contract Act cannot be brought with lock, stock and barrel to a marriage which is sacrament. 31. In the backdrop of the settled legal position, this Court now proceeds to re-advert to the factual substratum of the instant case as well as to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 32. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned family court has wrongly considered the fact that the plaintiff was aware of the chronic disease of the respondent in the year 2018 rather the appellant came to know of the true and complete nature of the ailment and its consequence only in the month of October-November, 2022 upon discovery of the concealed medical records of the year 2011 and subsequent consultation with the doctor. 33. It has also been contended that the respondent did put her appearance before the learned Family Court but never contested the matter on merits nor did she file any written statement or adduced any evidence in rebuttal of the appellant’s case, as such, the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the [2026:JHHC:24995-DB] Page | 15 fact the pleading and evidence put forth by the appellant stood undisputed, hence, the original suit ought not to have been dismissed. 34. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, this Court has ventured into impugned judgment wherefrom it is evident that the learned family court has taken note of the fact that the appellant has self-contradicted two evidence as his evidence in para-26 in his examination-in-chief itself by deposing that the appellant himself took his wife to CMC Vellore where his wife was given medical treatment on 22.10.2018 whereas he has stated in para-7 and 8 that the mother and brother of the respondent after forbidding him took his wife to Vellore and he used to send his wife to Vellore on the interval of three months with the brother of his wife. 35. Thus, it has been observed by the learned Family Court that in view of this evidence and medical papers produced by appellant himself it is crystal clear that he was fully aware about the medical condition of his wife since the year 2018 itself when he took his wife to Vellore for her medical treatment thus his pleading and evidence that for the first time he came to know about medical condition of his wife in the month of November, 2022 when he approached a doctor along with those reports then he found that his wife was suffering from aforesaid disease gets falsified from his own evidence. 36. 36. It has also been taken note by the learned Family Court that no any doctor was examined by appellant to prove this fact that he/she advised the plaintiff in November, 2022 that his wife was suffering from any incurable disease as alleged by the appellant. Further, the appellant has failed to prove any medical report or opinion of any doctor to prove that disease which was diagnosed had any connection with alleged surgery conducted prior to marriage. Further, it is also beyond reason to understand that during medical treatment of his wife at Vellore or at other various hospital, the doctor did not observe any cut mark on abdomen of wife of the appellant and did not enquire about the same during her medical examination. Therefore, the sequence of evidence shows that the appellant was fully aware about medical condition of his wife at least since the year 2018 itself when he took her to Vellore in connection with her treatment. [2026:JHHC:24995-DB] Page | 16 37. It has also been taken note by the learned Family court that it cannot be believed that if the wife of the appellant had to keep medical report regarding her surgery in secrecy, then why would she hide those reports in her in-laws' house which could have jeopardize her future marital life. Thus, there is every probability that the documents relating to surgery also would have been presented during her treatment at various hospitals including Vellore. Therefore, no recent reliance can be placed on the pleading and evidence of appellant that for the first time he came to know about the medical condition of his wife in the year 2022 only. 38. The appellant himself has pleaded that his marriage was solemnized on 22.11.2017 and the appellant with his full consent lived with his wife from 22.11.2017 till October, 2022 and actively participated in her medical treatment also. 39. It needs to refer herein that the provision of Section 12(2)(a)(ii) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 prescribes that no petition for nullity of marriage on the ground specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained if the petitioner has with his or her full consent, lived with other party to the marriage as husband or wife after the force had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud has been discovered. 40. Thus, the Section 12(2)(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is rider on Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1955 which clearly prescribed that if alleged fraud is discovered and the appellant continued to live with other party with his full consent as husband and wife, the petition for annulment for marriage cannot be entertained and in the present case the evidence brought on the record clearly establish that appellant became aware about alleged medical condition of his wife in the year 2018 itself when he took his wife to CMC Vellore for treatment and continued to live with his wife till 2022 and had actively participated in her medical treatment also with his full consent whereas petition for decree of nullity has been filed in the year 2023. 41. From the foregoing paragraphs of the impugned judgment/order, it is manifest that the learned Family Court has meticulously scrutinized each document as well as the oral testimonies adduced on behalf of the appellant. Upon such comprehensive appraisal, the learned Family Court has [2026:JHHC:24995-DB] Page | 17 conclusively determined that in view of the provision contained u/s 12(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, application for decree of nullity of marriage u/s 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act of the appellant cannot be entertained and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the original suit had been dismissed holding that the appellant is not entitled for decree of nullity as claimed for. 42. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that the said finding, being based on cogent appreciation of evidence, does not suffer from perversity. 43. Accordingly, the order/judgment dated 26.06.2025 and decree signed on 07.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-1, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 808 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the learned court has dismissed the suit for decree of nullity of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the appellant, warrants no interference. 44. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 45. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 18th August, 2026 Saurabh/N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 24.08.2026