Short Note : 1. The respondent Dolatram (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) filed a petition under section 12 of the Act on 19-10-1976 for the annulment of his marriage with the appellant Smt. Kavita alias Savitabai on the ground that he was married with the appellant on 11-7-1976; that after the solemnisation of the marriage, he noticed that his wife was trying to keep herself away from him on one pretext or the other; that on being persuaded by him, she wanted the petitioner to give a solemn undertaking that after he has a look at her body, he would not disclose as to what he notices; but when the petitioner had a look at the body of his wife, he was shocked to find that his wife had extensive burn-scars from the right shoulder to the right knee; that the right breast of his wife was completely missing because of extensive burns and that in these circumstances, he had to leave the room in which he was to sleep with his wife and disclosed the physical features of his wife noticed by him, to his parents. The petitioner further alleged that prior to his marriage his wife's burns were never disclosed either to the petitioner or to his parents; that his wife was suffering from such extensive burn-scars; that in case this disclosure had been made prior to the solemnisation of the marriage when he was engaged to his wife he would not have agreed to the solemnisation of the marriage; that thereafter the petitioner wanted to have the marriage annulled by mutual negotiations but there was no success; that in these circumstances his marriage with his wife could not be consummated and that attempts made by him for the annulment of his marriage with the appellant by mutual negotiations failed, he prayed for a decree for the annulment of his marriage with the appellant on the ground that his consent for the marriage was obtained by fraud. 2. In her reply, the appellant admitted that she was married to the petitioner on 11-7-1976. 2. In her reply, the appellant admitted that she was married to the petitioner on 11-7-1976. She, however, contended that there was no fraud in obtaining the consent of the petitioner for the marriage; that it was during her childhood while she was busy in worship that her clothes suddenly caught fire leaving a burn scar of about 6” x 8” that when she was to be engaged to the petitioner his parents were told that she had turn scars on her body; that the petitioner's sister had actually looked at this burnt portion of her body at the time of the engagement and that in these circumstances there was no question of any fraud being practised for obtaining the petitioner's consent. She also denied the other allegation made by the petitioner in the petition regarding any undertaking being given by her. Lastly, according to her, disputes arose between her and the petitioner after the marriage was actually consummated on a question of a demand of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioner and his parents, which her parents could not meet. 3. After hearing the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant had extensive burn scars on her body right from the neck to the thigh; that because of these scars, her physical appearance gives repulsive and ugly outlook; that the appellant kept herself away from the petitioner for a number of days after the marriage, that if the condition of her body was disclosed before the marriage the petitioner would have never married her; that the consent of the petitioner was obtained by fraud and that on these grounds the petitioner's marriage with the appellant was liable to be annulled by decree of nullity. Held: In clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act, the words "by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent" were introduced by the amendment Act. Prior to the amendment the only ground on which a decree under section 12 of the Act could be passed was fraud or force for the consent of the petitioner to the marriage. Because of the amendment an additional ground has been provided for such cases where consent by means of fraud even with regard to any material fact or circumstance concerning respondent is established. Because of the amendment an additional ground has been provided for such cases where consent by means of fraud even with regard to any material fact or circumstance concerning respondent is established. The question, therefore, would be whether the ground urged by the petitioner for the annulment of the marriage should or should not be treated as amounting to fraud regarding the material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent. 4. (After discussing the evidence produced by both the parties, their Lordships held-) From the aforesaid discussion it would therefore be clear that the fact that the appellant was suffering from such extensive burn scars on her body and that her right breast was completely missing was never disclosed either to the parents of the petitioner or even to the petitioner himself. This is not a case where the appellant's body had some isolated and small burn scars on some part of her body. An important and material characteristic of the body of the appellant, namely, her right breast was completely missing since much before the petitioner consented for his marriage with her. The then condition of her body and its appearance was, in our opinion, a material circumstance concerning the respondent. Ordinarily, if anyone is told about such physical condition and appearance of a girl before a proposal for marriage, then he would not give his consent for the marriage unless there are some other compelling reasons. The petitioner, is therefore, justified in contending that in case he had been informed of these facts prior to his consenting for marrying the appellant, he would have declined to marry her and would not have given his consent. Since, in our opinion, neither the appellant nor her parents brought the aforesaid fact to the notice of the petitioner and his parents and without disclosing this fact, they procured the consent of the petitioner, the petitioner is justified in saying that with regard to this material circumstance concerning the respondent, his consent was obtained by fraud. 5. The word "fraud" has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. 5. The word "fraud" has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. In the instant case the fact that the appellant was suffering from the aforesaid deformity was not disclosed to the petitioner or his parents and was in fact concealed even though the appellant and her parents had full knowledge about it will go to establish that by concealing this material circumstance relating to the appellant, the appellant and her parents practised fraud on the petitioner and obtained his consent for the marriage. The appellant, therefore, would be guilty of committing fraud on the petitioner with regard to the material facts and circumstances concerning her physical appearance. We are, therefore, of the view that in this case the petitioner was on the aforesaid ground entitled to the decree prayed for by him under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 6. [Their Lordships, on evidence repelled the contention of the appellant that the marriage was consummated, and, hence, refused to give benefit under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act.] Appeal dismissed.