Hiding absence of uterus valid ground for annulment of marriage: Delhi HC

A bench was hearing a woman’s appeal against a family court order that annulled her marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act

Deliberately hiding the absence of uterus is a valid ground for annulment of marriage, the Delhi High Court ruled on Wednesday, citing that infertility due to a medical condition may fundamentally affect the core expectations of a matrimonial relationship.

Section 12 (1)(c) of the HMA allows a spouse to seek annulment if consent for marriage was obtained by fraud, whether relating to the nature of the ceremony or any material fact or circumstance. (HT Archive)

A bench of justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar was hearing a woman’s appeal against a family court order that annulled her marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). The order was released on Friday.

Section 12 (1)(c) of the HMA allows a spouse to seek annulment if consent for marriage was obtained by fraud, whether relating to the nature of the ceremony or any material fact or circumstance.

In this case, the family court had annulled the marriage on the husband’s plea, holding that the woman had intentionally concealed this fact from him.

The woman argued that she herself was unaware of the absence of her uterus, and hence, the allegation of deliberate concealment could not be sustained.

Upholding the annulment, the bench in a verdict authored by justice Shankar, said that concealing such a medical condition strikes at the very root of marriage.

“Procreation forms a genuine expectation of a spouse, being an integral aspect of marital life alongside companionship and emotional support. The inability to conceive, arising from the absence of a uterus, strikes at the heart of marital obligations and expectations and cannot, therefore, be treated as immaterial,” the court ruled.

The court also found the woman’s testimony before the trial court to be inconsistent regarding her medical condition, noting that while she at one point claimed to be capable of conceiving, she also admitted that she did not have a uterus.

In its 22-page ruling, the court rejected the woman’s claim that until her marriage she believed she had a uterus. “This court finds it hard to believe that till the age of 24 she never sought to question the absence of menstruation,” the judgment maintained.