The P v K Case discusses the concealment of reproductive/genital deformity considering sections 12 (a) and (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. While marriages are developed on trust and confidence, contrasting to which concealment of facts from future spouses is seen as a very common practice.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:

15^th July 1982

RELEVANT PROVISIONS:

Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

FACTS OF P vs K Case 1982:

• The appellant (husband) and respondent (wife) both are Hindu and were married on 20^th June 1976.
• The marriage was not consummated as the respondent resisted sexual intercourse with the appellant. Subsequently, the appellant, through a medical test, found the respondent suffered from second-degree prolapsed of the uterus and concealed the fact all this time.

LEGAL ISSUES:

1. Whether a concealment of known prolapsed and obtaining the consent of marriage would amount to fraud?

2. Whether such prolapsed of the uterus is equated to impotency?

CONTENTIONS:

1. The Appellant asserted the respondent was suffering from second-degree prolapse of the Uterus, which reflects her being non-virgin.

2. Respondent was already aware of the fact and to hide her condition she resisted sexual intercourse.

3. Such concealment /misrepresentation by the respondent and her family should be deemed as fraud and marriage should be annulled.

RATIO DECIDENDI:

1. The bench deemed the respondent was aware of her condition before her marriage and her abstinence from sexual intercourse with her husband is substantiating the same.
2. Concealment/misrepresentation of every fact or circumstance cannot be categorised as fraud or be sufficient for annulment only concealment/ misrepresentation of material facts will be contemplated as fraud or would be held as sufficient ground for annulment.
3. Any facts or circumstance which materially interfere with marital life or pleasures, including the sexual pleasures of a married couple, can be considered as material facts and circumstances.
4. Sexual intercourse without physical manipulation of protruding uterus will probably cause abhorrence and dislike and would affect the sexual pleasure of spouse and concealment of such will be considered as fraud.
5. Inability to have ordinary and complete sexual intercourse is considered as impotency and, as pointed above, sexual intercourse without physical manipulation of protruding uterus will probably cause abhorrence and dislike which could not lead to ordinary and complete intercourse, therefore, such can be equated to impotency.

DECISION:

The Court granted the appeal of the appellant and directed him to pay permanent alimony to the respondent, which was set at Rs.13,500/-.

Found P v K Case Summary AIR 1982 BOM 400 useful? We have a bunch of useful topics from family law that will help you in your preparation here >>> FAMILY LAW

Check out our YouTube Channel for free legal videos >>> LAW PLANET YT