In this second appeal, the High Court dismissed the challenge against the dismissal of a suit for recovery of damages. The court upheld lower courts' findings that appellants failed to lead cogent evidence proving fraud or concealment of mental disorder regarding the matrimonial alliance.
The appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 4093 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 5.1.2012.
Sant Ram Panthi & others
--Appellants
Versus
Ram Swarath Bhushan and others
--Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:Mr. K.L. Kohli, Advocate for the appellants.
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J
The plaintiffs-appellants are in second appeal before this Court. A suit for recovery of damages was filed by the plaintiffsappellants against the defendants-respondents in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh. The entire basis of filing the suit was that plaintiffappellant no.3 had been enticed into matrimony with defendant-respondent no.3 by suppressing material facts as regards the mental ailment of defendant-respondent no.3, whereas he being of mental unstable mind and not being in a position to perform his marital obligations. The contention raised was that a fraud had been played upon the plaintiffs-appellants. Briefly stated, it had been pleaded that a petition for annulment of marriage between plaintiff-appellant no.3 and defendant-respondent no.3 had been filed in the court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh and the same had been accepted and their marriage had been annulled by judgement and decree dated 3.8.2005. Plaintiff-appellant no.1 in December, 2003 had invited proposals through internet for the matrimonial alliance of his daughter i.e. plaintiff-appellant no.3. On 30.3.2004, defendant-respondent no.3 had responded through e-mail and had stated his qualifications and
RSA No. 4093 of 2011(O&M)
-2-
employment details therein. It was pleaded that defendant-respondent no.3 had, however, suppressed material fact that he was suffering from a mental disorder and such fact was known to his parents i.e. defendants-respondents no.1 and 2. The marriage was solemnized on 27.6.2004, whereupon plaintiffs-appellants no.1 and 2 had incurred a huge expenditure amounting to the tune of Rs.8 lacs. It is pleaded that in the year 2004, plaintiffappellant no.3 accompanied defendant-respondent no.3 i.e. her husband at that point of time to the city of Zurich, Switzerland and thereupon discovered the unstable mental health of the defendant-respondent no.3. In a nutshell it was pleaded that it was thereupon that the annulment of marriage was sought for and granted and it is on account of the fraudulent and wrongful acts of the defendants-respondents that the suit for recovery of damages had been instituted.
The defendants-respondents contested the suit and it was pleaded on merits that the marriage was solemnized after due and free consent of the parties. It was also pleaded that there had been no concealment on their part. The factum of defendant-respondent no.3 suffering from a mental disorder was also specifically denied.
The suit for recovery of damages was dismissed vide order dated 12.1.2009 by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh. The trial court conclusively held that the plaintiffs-appellants had failed to prove on record that any fraud had been played upon them by the defendants-respondents. It was held by the trial court that no cogent evidence had been led to return a finding that the plaintiffs-appellants had been trapped into a matrimonial alliance and there was no evidence whatsoever to prove that defendantrespondent no.3 was a person, who was lacking in physical/mental capacity
RSA No. 4093 of 2011(O&M)
-3-
with regard to his marital obligations.
The plaintiffs-appellants being dissatisfied filed a civil appeal in the court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh and the same has been dismissed vide impugned judgement 31.5.2011. Resultantly, the plaintiffsappellants are in second appeal before this Court.
I have heard Mr. K.L. Kohli, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants at length.
Mr. Kohli has vehemently argued that the findings of both the courts below are totally erroneous and based on surmises and conjectures. As per him on the basis of evidence led on record a conclusion could clearly be drawn that defendant-respondent no.3 was suffering from a mental disorder and the same was never disclosed to the plaintiffs-appellants and as such the consent for the matrimonial alliance between plaintiff-appellant no.3 and defendant-respondent no.3 had been obtained by playing fraud upon the plaintiffs-appellants. Learned counsel further contends that as soon as plaintiff-appellant no.3 came to know about the mental disorder of defendant-respondent no.3, he disclosed to her about the treatment that had been taken by him from various hospitals. As such learned counsel contends that the plaintiffs-appellants having incurred heavy expenditure at the time of solemnization of the marriage and coupled with the fact of the fraudulent activity on the part of defendants-respondents and the marriage having been annulled by the competent court of law, the plaintiffsappellants were entitled to claim damages amounting to Rs.20 lacs.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The entire issue hinges around the fact as to whether the consent of the plaintiffs-appellants
RSA No. 4093 of 2011(O&M) -4-
as regards the matrimonial alliance regarding marriage between the plaintiff-appellant no.3 with defendant-respondent no.3 was obtained fraudulently and by concealing any material fact in the nature of his qualifications, status, mental/physical health etc.
The first appellate court upon appreciation of the entire evidence led on record has clearly noticed that all the material averments as regards the alleged fraud, concealment of the nature of mental illness etc. have been made in paras 7 to 12 of the plaint. In the reply filed on behalf of the defendants-respondents to the corresponding paras, there has been a categoric denial. In such a situation, the plaintiffs-appellants having raised a plea that on account of the act and conduct of defendant-respondent no.3 of concealment and further the fact of self disclosure of the mental disorder and the same having been categorically denied, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs-appellants to have confronted the defendant-respondent no.3 with such factual situation in cross-examination so as to substantiate and corroborate their plea. However, the first appellate court has noticed that the instances of imperfect marital intercourse, beatings to plaintiff-appellant no.3, self disclosure of mental ailment and treatment thereof by defendantrespondent no.3 were never put to DW-3, Pritesh Bhushan, defendantrespondent no.3. On the other hand, PW-3 Amarpali Panthi, i.e. plaintiffappellant no.3 has herself admitted that she has no documentary proof to show that her former husband was abnormal. It has also been noticed by the courts below that even the judgement and decree dated 3.9.2005 passed in Petition No.6 of 2005 Ex. P-2 for annulment of marriage was allowed exparte. Even in that case, plaintiff-appellant no.3 had not brought forth any documentary evidence with respect to the mental ailment of defendant-
RSA No. 4093 of 2011(O&M) -5-
respondent no.3. Still further, the plaintiffs-appellants have not been able to prove on record any fraudulent act having been committed by the defendants-respondents. Such is the concurrent finding by the courts below. Ex.R-6 is a copy of the order passed on the application for interim maintenance, wherein it was stated that the petition under section 25 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for grant of interim maintenance was filed by plaintiff-appellant no.3 and the same was disposed of. After disposal of the main petition the plaintiff-appellant no.3 again moved an application to decide her application for grant of interim maintenance. The same was dismissed vide order dated 16.8.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. Being aggrieved thereof a revision petition in the High Court was filed by the plaintiff-appellant no.3 and the same was registered as Civil Revision No. 5135 of 2005 and the same was also dismissed by the High Court on 29.9.2005. As such the trial court has clearly held that the plaintiff-appellant no.3 has availed all the opportunities available to her for maintenance as well as for permanent alimony. It has also been held that the plaintiffs-appellants have failed to prove that the consent for marriage had been obtained by any fraudulent means and nothing has been placed on record in the nature of any medical evidence to prove the mental/physical incapacity. No report of any doctor or any medical prescription has been placed on record. On the other hand, defendant-respondent no.3 has placed on record a copy of the salary certificate as Ex.R-7 to demonstrate that he was working as a Senior Software Engineer in a reputed firm.
The plaintiffs-appellants are basing their claim for recovery of damages on the ground of having been enticed into matrimony and as such a fraud having been played upon them by concealing the fact of a mental
RSA No. 4093 of 2011(O&M) -6-
disorder of defendant-respondent no.3. It was incumbent upon the plaintiffsappellants by leading cogent and independent evidence and that too specifically on the aspect of the mental ailment being allegedly suffered by defendant-respondent no.3. Such onus has not been discharged by the plaintiffs-appellants as has been held by both the courts below. On the other hand the first appellate court has referred to the testimony of DW-3 i.e. defendant-respondent no.3 that he had passed a degree of Electrical Engineering from I.I.T., Kanpur in the year 1999 and thereafter he qualified a diploma course in the management from I.I.M. Bangalore in the year 2000-2002. It was upon being armed with such qualifications that he was working as a Senior Business Analyst and working in the city of Zurich, Switzerland. The courts below have held that it was not possible for the defendant-respondent no.3 to be holding such a senior and responsible post in a multi national company, if, he was suffering from any mental disorder.
I do not find it to be a fit case that would warrant any interference in the findings and conclusions of the courts below. The testimony and evidence of the parties have been discussed threadbare. There is no question of law much less substantial question of law that arises for determination in the present second appeal.
The present second appeal for the reasons and discussion recorded above must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE
5.1.2012.
lucky
Whether to be reported? Yes.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second court of appeal can interfere with the findings of fact regarding fraud and concealment established by lower courts.
Sant Ram Panthi & others
Ram Swarath Bhushan and others
Tejender Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
