Nondisclosure of mental disorder justified annulment of marriage where medical evidence and adverse inference showed suppressed material facts.

Nondisclosure of a spouse's serious mental disorder can amount to suppression of a material fact affecting valid consent to marriage under Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. On medical prescriptions, doctors' testimony and surrounding circumstances, the HC found a strong prima facie case that the respondent suffered from schizophrenia or hebephrenia. It held that a matrimonial court may direct medical examination to ascertain the truth, and the respondent's refusal to submit to expert examination justified an adverse inference. The marriage was therefore treated as voidable and annulled.

---

---

Issues: Whether the marriage was liable to be annulled under Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that the respondent was suffering from a mental disorder and that such fact had been suppressed at the time of marriage.

Analysis: The medical prescriptions and testimony of the doctors, read with the surrounding circumstances, raised a serious doubt about the respondent's mental condition. The Court held that a matrimonial court has the power to direct medical examination to arrive at the truth, and that such power is supported by the principles recognised in matrimonial jurisprudence and the court's procedural powers. The respondent's refusal to undergo examination by an expert medical board justified an adverse inference. On the evidence, the appellant had established a strong prima facie case that the respondent was suffering from schizophrenia or hebephrenia, and the nondisclosure of that condition amounted to suppression of a material fact affecting valid consent to marriage.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the appellant. The marriage was held voidable and was annulled under Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

---