The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld a divorce, holding that concealment of a serious medical condition before marriage amounts to mental cruelty. The wife’s appeal was dismissed, though permanent alimony of ₹5 lakh was granted.
BILASPUR: In a judgment dealing with marital transparency and mental cruelty, the Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld a decree of Confirm Divorce in favour of the husband after it was found that the wife had concealed a crucial medical fact related to her menstrual health for nearly ten years prior to and after the marriage.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad concluded that such concealment caused serious mental agony to the husband and amounted to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.
The appeal was filed by the wife challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2022 passed by the Family Court, Kawardha, which had dissolved the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The High Court examined the entire material on record and dismissed the appeal, finding no illegality in the Family Court’s decision.
The husband and masked wife were married on 05.06.2015 according to Hindu rituals. After the marriage, the wife informed the husband that she had skipped her menstrual cycle. Initially, the husband believed this to be a sign of pregnancy and took her to a gynaecologist for medical consultation.
During this examination, it was revealed that the wife had not experienced any menstrual discharge for the past ten years. This disclosure came as a shock to the husband, who stated that he was never informed of this condition before marriage.
The record further shows that when the husband questioned the wife about why she proceeded with the marriage despite knowing her medical condition, she allegedly replied that had she disclosed the truth earlier, he would have refused to marry her. Another medical consultation indicated that there was a serious issue related to her uterus, creating difficulty in conceiving.
According to the husband, this concealment caused him deep mental distress and shattered his expectations of married life, leading him to seek divorce on the ground of cruelty.
The Family Court, after evaluating oral and documentary evidence, accepted the husband’s case and granted the decree of divorce. Aggrieved by this decision, the wife approached the High Court contending that her medical condition was temporary, treatable, and that she had become capable of conceiving after medication. However, she failed to produce any medical certificate or documentary proof to substantiate this claim.
During the proceedings, the High Court took note of the husband’s statement made during cross-examination, where he clearly explained his mental suffering and sense of betrayal. His statement was reproduced in the judgment as follows:
“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. Thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court in the impugned judgment passed by learned Family Court.”
The Court also relied upon another crucial statement of the husband recorded during cross-examination, which reflected the core grievance regarding concealment of facts. The statement reads:
“यदि मुझे अनावेदिका पहले से बता देती कि वह संतानोत्पत्ति की योग्य नहीं है तो मैं इस बारे में सोच सकता था, किन्तु उसके द्वारा मुझे इस संबंध में नहीं बताया गया, जांच कराने पर स्थिति साफ हुई और मेरा पांच साल खराब हुआ।”
On the other hand, the wife admitted before the Court that although she claimed to have become capable of conceiving after treatment, she had not produced any doctor’s certificate to support her assertion. It was also an admitted fact that both parties had been living separately since 2016.
After considering all aspects, the High Court held that concealment of such a vital medical condition at the time of marriage strikes at the very foundation of trust in a matrimonial relationship. The Court agreed with the Family Court’s conclusion that the husband was subjected to mental cruelty and was therefore entitled to a decree of divorce.
Accordingly, the High Court upheld the impugned judgment dissolving the marriage. However, keeping in view the socio-economic status of the parties and following the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Sau. Jiya v. Kuldeep, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 213, the Court directed the husband to pay a sum of ₹5,00,000 as one-time permanent alimony to the wife.
The Court clarified that this amount would cover all present and future claims arising out of the marital relationship and must be paid within four months.
With these observations, the appeal filed by the wife was dismissed, and the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court was affirmed in toto.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved In The Case
| Law / Statute | Section | Explanation | How Applied in This Case |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 13(1)(ia) | Provides divorce on the ground of cruelty, including mental cruelty | Concealment of a serious medical condition before marriage was held to cause mental cruelty to the husband |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 13(1)(a) (as pleaded) | Dissolution of marriage based on fault grounds | Husband invoked this provision before the Family Court seeking divorce |
| Supreme Court Guidelines | Sau. Jiya v. Kuldeep, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 213 | Lays down principles for granting permanent alimony | Relied upon by the High Court while awarding ₹5,00,000 as one-time permanent alimony |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Wife vs Husband
- Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
- Case Number: FA(MAT) No. 63 of 2022
- Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:59613-DB
- Date of Judgment Reserved: 17.09.2025
- Date of Pronouncement: 09.12.2025
- Date of Upload: 09.12.2025
Bench
- Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
- Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Counsels
- For Appellant (Wife):
- Mr. Chandrakaditya Pandey, counsel on behalf of
- Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate
- For Respondent (Husband):
- None appeared
Final Outcome
- Divorce decree in favour of the masked husband upheld
- Concealment of infertility-related medical facts held to be mental cruelty
- Permanent alimony of ₹5,00,000 awarded as one-time settlement
- Appeal filed by masked wife dismissed
Key Takeaways
- Concealing a serious medical condition before marriage is not a personal choice – courts now clearly recognise it as mental cruelty against the husband.
- Marriage cannot be built on deception; informed consent is fundamental, and hiding infertility shatters marital trust.
- A wife’s mere verbal claim of being medically cured holds no value in court without documentary medical proof.
- Men are legally entitled to walk out of marriages where truth is deliberately suppressed and emotional suffering is inflicted.
- Even after proving cruelty, husbands are still burdened with alimony – highlighting how Indian men continue to pay the price for broken marriages.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
