Site icon Legal Vidhiya

Alok Kaushik Vs Mrs. Bhuvaneshwari Ramanathan

Admin
Advertisements
Spread the love
CITATIONSCC Online SC 245
DATE OF JUDGMENT15th march, 2021
COURTSupreme court of india
APPELLANTAlok Kaushik
RESPONDENTMrs. Bhuvaneshwari Ramanathan 
BENCHJustice Ashok Bhushan and Justice R. Subhash Reddy

INTRODUCTION      

The case involves a dispute regarding the annulment of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant sought to annul the marriage on the grounds of fraud, claiming the respondent concealed a material fact about her health prior to the marriage. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The marriage between Alok Kaushik and Mrs. Bhuvaneshwari Ramanathan was solemnized on January 21, 2017.

2. Alok Kaushik filed a petition for annulment of marriage on the grounds of fraud under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. He claimed that the respondent had concealed her psychiatric disorder, which was a material fact that, if disclosed, would have influenced his decision to marry her.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the concealment of the psychiatric disorder by the respondent constitutes fraud under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to an annulment of marriage based on the alleged fraud?

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

1. The appellant argued that the respondent’s concealment of her psychiatric disorder amounted to fraud.

2.  He claimed that had he known about the respondent’s medical condition, he would not have consented to the marriage.

3. The appellant sought an annulment of the marriage on these grounds.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

1. The respondent contended that her psychiatric disorder was not concealed and was known to the appellant before the marriage.

2. She argued that the disorder did not affect her capacity to consent to the marriage and did not constitute a material fact warranting annulment.

3. The respondent further asserted that the marriage was consummated, indicating her ability to fulfill marital obligations.

EVIDENCE

  1. Documentation of the respondent’s psychiatric disorder and treatment history before the marriage.
  2. Evidence of any discussions or discloures regarding the respondent’s health condition between the appellant and the respondent before marriage.
  3. Statements from individuals who were aware of the respondent’s psychiatric condition prior to the marriage and whether it was disclosed to the appellant.

JUDGEMENT

1.The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s petition for annulment.

2. The court held that the concealment of the psychiatric disorder did not constitute fraud under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. The court observed that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent had concealed a material fact that would have influenced his decision to marry her. 

ANALYSIS

1. The judgment emphasized the importance of proving fraud with clear and convincing evidence.

2. The court noted that mere concealment of a fact is not sufficient to annul a marriage unless it is proved that the fact was material and was deliberately concealed with the intent to deceive.

3. The court also considered the consummation of the marriage as an indication that the respondent was capable of fulfilling marital obligations.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirmed the principles governing annulment of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It underscored the necessity of proving fraud with substantial evidence and clarified that not all concealments amount to fraud warranting annulment. The dismissal of the appellant’s petition emphasized the need for clear and convincing proof in cases involving allegations of fraud in matrimonial matters. 

REFERENCES

  1. SCC Online
  2. Supreme court of india judgments

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version