Delhi HC Rules Concealment of Uterus Absence as Matrimonial Fraud, Annulment Upheld

The Delhi High Court has held that deliberate concealment of the absence of a uterus amounts to fraud under matrimonial law, ruling that hiding such a condition, which strikes at the very root of marital life, is a valid ground for annulment of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The judgment came while dealing with an appeal filed by a woman challenging a Family Court order that had annulled her marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act.

A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, in its 22-page ruling, observed:

“Such deliberate concealment of a condition like absence of uterus… strikes at the very root of matrimonial life and constitutes the core ground for our affirmation of the findings of the learned District Judge, who rightly held the Appellant guilty of practicing fraud upon the Respondent.”

The appellant wife and the respondent husband were married on 21 April 2016 in an arranged marriage. The husband claimed that he wanted children, but the wife consistently avoided conversations about starting a family and resisted medical consultations.

Later, when she visited Origyn Fertility & IVF Centre, B.M. Gupta Hospital, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, she underwent an ultrasound scan. The report revealed that the wife did not have a uterus and was also missing her left kidney, making conception impossible. The husband stated that this fact had been concealed from him and his family at the time of marriage.

Aggrieved, he approached the Family Court at Tis Hazari, which declared the marriage null and void under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The provision allows annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud “as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent.”

The court held that the husband’s consent had been obtained by fraud since the wife had not disclosed the absence of a uterus, a material fact under the law.

Challenging this verdict, the wife argued before the High Court that there was no deliberate concealment as she was unaware of her medical condition at the time of marriage, and hence the question of fraud did not arise.

The High Court examined whether the absence of a uterus constituted a “material fact or circumstance” sufficient to render the marriage voidable, and whether non-disclosure amounted to obtaining consent by fraud. It held that failure to disclose a circumstance that fundamentally affects the prospects of a normal and happy married life amounts to fraud under Section 12(1)(c).

The bench relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, where it was observed that “Procreation forms a genuine expectation of a spouse, being an integral aspect of marital life alongside companionship and emotional support. The inability to conceive, arising from the absence of a uterus, strikes at the heart of marital obligations and expectations and cannot, therefore, be treated as immaterial. It is well recognized that marriage encompasses procreation and companionship.”

The Court also noted serious contradictions in the appellant’s testimony regarding her medical condition. At one stage, she portrayed herself as capable of conceiving and even alleged pregnancy and miscarriage, but in cross-examination, she categorically admitted she never had a uterus.

The bench observed that her inconsistent statements, coupled with belated and unsubstantiated claims about surgical removal and stitch marks, eroded her credibility. It concluded:

“We concur with the view of the learned District Judge, as recorded in paragraph 22 of the Impugned Judgment, that it is difficult to accept that a 24-year-old woman residing in a metropolitan city like Delhi could have remained unaware of the complete absence of menstruation.”

Upholding the Family Court judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed that concealment of such a vital fact strikes at the core of matrimonial obligations, making the marriage voidable on grounds of fraud.

Case Title: R vs M

Date of Judgement: 27 August 2025

Bench: Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar