The High Court of Chhattisgarh has upheld a decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Kawardha, affirming that the concealment of a medical condition affecting a spouse’s ability to conceive constitutes valid grounds for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court dismissed the wife’s appeal against the divorce but directed the husband to pay Rs. 5 Lakh as permanent alimony.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, observed that the Family Court had rightly appreciated the evidence establishing that the wife had suppressed material facts regarding her health prior to the marriage.
Background of the Case
The appeal challenged the judgment dated March 16, 2022, passed by the Family Court, Kawardha, in Civil Suit No. 48A/2017. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on June 5, 2015, according to Hindu rituals.
The respondent-husband filed an application for divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. His primary contention was that the appellant-wife had concealed the fact that she was not experiencing menstrual discharge for nearly 10 years prior to the marriage. The husband stated that initially, the marital life was cordial, but disputes arose over the wife’s behavior towards his family members.
According to the husband, when the wife revealed she had skipped her menstrual cycle, he took her to a gynecologist, believing it to be a sign of pregnancy. However, during the medical checkup, the wife disclosed to the doctor that she had not had her menstrual cycle for 10 years. Further examination revealed serious issues with her uterus, causing difficulty in conceiving.
The husband alleged that when confronted, the wife admitted to the concealment, stating, “if she had told him the truth before, he would have said no, so now he has to bear her.” He further alleged that the wife deserted him in 2016 after taking clothes, ornaments, and cash, and refused to return.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant-wife denied the allegations in her written statement. She contended that her father had borne the entire marriage expenses and provided dowry items. She specifically denied the medical incapacity, asserting that she was taken to the doctor only because her husband wanted a child immediately.
She claimed that Dr. Gulati had opined that “the womb (Bachchedani) was closed due to which there is difficulty in pregnancy” but described the problem as temporary and curable through medicine and Yoga. She alleged that she was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws, who called her a “barren woman,” and that the application for divorce was filed on false grounds.
In his testimony, the respondent-husband stated:
“I am capable of producing children… If the non-applicant had told me before that she is not eligible for childbearing, I could have thought about it, but she did not tell me… my five years were spoiled.”
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court examined the evidence presented before the Family Court, including the medical documents filed by the husband (Ex. A/01 to A/12), such as the Hysterosalpingography (HSG) report and doctor’s prescriptions.
The Court noted that while the wife claimed in her cross-examination that “after taking medications, she has become capable of having a child,” she admitted that “she has not produced any Doctor Certificate in this regard.”
The Bench observed:
“Learned Family Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and finds that issues No. 1 and 3 are in favour of the respondent/husband and rightly passed the decree of divorce in favour of him.”
Finding no illegality or irregularity in the trial court’s decision, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the divorce decree.
Permanent Alimony
While confirming the divorce, the Court addressed the issue of permanent alimony. Relying on the recent guidelines of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sau. Jiya vs. Kuldeep (2025 SCC OnLine SC 213), the Bench held:
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the socio-economic status of the parties… we find that awarding an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as a one time settlement in favour of the appellant-wife shall serve the purpose of equity and meet the ends of justice.”
The husband was directed to pay the alimony within four months.
