Judgment S.N. SATYANARAYANA J. 1. The unsuccessful petitioner in MC.No.1814/2004 on the file of Family Court, Bangalore, has come up in this first appeal. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under. For the sake of convenience the parties to this appeal are referred to by their rank in the court below. 2. Petitioner and respondent herein are husband and wife. Their marriage was arranged by the elders of respective family. It was solemnised on 1.9.2003 at Bunt's Sangha Choultry, Bangalore, as per the customs prevailing in their community. Admittedly, petitioner has completed intermediate in Chartered Accountancy Examination. He is an Executive in Wipro Limited. So far as respondent is concerned, she is working in a travel agency firm, namely, Thomas Cook at Bangalore. 3. The difference between parties appears to have started from the day of their marriage. According to petitioner, immediately after the marriage i.e., on the first night in the nuptial ceremony, the marriage could not be consummated as he could not have successful intercourse with his wife, since she had certain skin disorder, localised around her private parts with infectious eruptions having pus formation in it. The said skin disorder prevented the parties to consummate their marriage on its nuptials. The petitioner has stated that his wife informed him, as having blood related infection, resulting in such eruptions, until that subsides it may not be possible for her to cooperate in consummation of marriage and the same was accepted by the petitioner. Immediately thereafter on 5th September 2003, marriage reception was organised for them at Chennai. At that time, they stayed together in the house of petitioner for two days. Thereafter, they went to Munnar for their honeymoon, since tickets and accommodation were booked in advance, they felt it is not worth cancelling the same. Hence, they went ahead with the honeymoon trip and stayed in Munnar and other places for nearly a week, where the physical relationship between them could not take place due to aforesaid problem of respondent. 4. After they returned from their honeymoon trip on 14.9.2003 they resumed their work immediately thereafter. In the meanwhile, petitioner insisted that respondent should get treatment for her blood related infection at the earliest. 4. After they returned from their honeymoon trip on 14.9.2003 they resumed their work immediately thereafter. In the meanwhile, petitioner insisted that respondent should get treatment for her blood related infection at the earliest. At that time, he was given to understand by the respondent that infection near her genital area was there right from her childhood for which she was taking treatment from one Dr. Venkatram at Mysore. It was a shocking revelation to petitioner. According to him, this was not informed either to himself or his family members from the parents of respondent at the time of negotiation of marriage. After collecting prescription slips issued by Dr. Venkat Ram petitioner contacted his cousin, Dr. Ganesh, who on going through the prescription slips advised him that respondent is not suffering from blood infection, however, to analyse the problem more accurately he advised him to contact one Dr. Prem. 5. Petitioner requested his wife to come along with him to meet Dr. Prem. Though respondent initially refused, later went along with him to meet Dr. Prem, who on thorough examination advised that a check-up by specialist is required. Hence, she was referred to Dr. Rusthum, who after examining respondent advised certain medicines which were prescribed to be taken continuously for one year and also advised to consult a surgeon for an opinion regarding the infection near genital area. In pursuance of the advise of Dr. Rusthum petitioner and respondent consulted Dr. Rajanna, Specialist in skin surgery for an opinion regarding the aforesaid infection, who on examination diagnosed the same as Recurring Furunclosis and prescribed Exertion/Biopsy of the infected area. It was also advised by the said Doctor that surgery of infected area is only temporary measure and that even after removal, the infection might erupt, since the said disease is chronic, inasmuch as, it was there since the childhood of respondent. It is stated that the respondent refused to undergo surgery. Thereafter, on the advise of another Doctor, respondent was taken to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore for a check-up by Dr. Krupa Shankar, Head of the Department of Dermatology, who in-turn diagnosed the disease as "Hidradenitis Suppurativa". According to him also it is an incurable disease. 6. It is stated that the respondent refused to undergo surgery. Thereafter, on the advise of another Doctor, respondent was taken to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore for a check-up by Dr. Krupa Shankar, Head of the Department of Dermatology, who in-turn diagnosed the disease as "Hidradenitis Suppurativa". According to him also it is an incurable disease. 6. On coming to know of the problem of respondent petitioner felt that his life is spoiled by respondent and her family members in not disclosing her health condition earlier to their marriage thereby causing mental agony to him. Thereafter, petitioner surfed in the web-site to know more about the disease of respondent and has come to know that "Hidradenitis Suppurativa" means an unknown chronic inflammatory skin disease which affects inverse areas of body such as top of inner things, bottom genital, armpits, under the breast in woman. It is a chronic disease of scent or apocrine glands, which causes chronic scarring and pus formation of the axillae and groin areas. The said disease starts as one or more red tender swelling in groin or axillae and over a period of hours or days the lesions enlarge and often open to the skin surface draining clear to yellow fluid. That the odour emanates from the wound is impossible to tolerate and it will make even impossible for somebody to stand near the patient suffering from said disease. The said disease is also popularly known as "Orphan Illness", which means, it is considered as rare and there are no pharmaceutical companies that have taken up the challenge to find a treatment or cure. It is also noticed by the petitioner in the said web-site that more than 80% of the persons suffering from aforesaid disease are diagnosed as clinically depressed, as there is no known cure for the said disease. Therefore, it is also impossible to cure the depression, which originates out of the said disease. 7. It is further noticed by him in the web-site that said disease cause lot of pain to the sufferer and the odour which emanates from the wound causes smell, which is intolerable for people to be near to them. The fact that respondent is suffering from said disease, is the major cause for non consummation of marriage between petitioner and respondent. It is also his case that himself and his parents are fond of children. The fact that respondent is suffering from said disease, is the major cause for non consummation of marriage between petitioner and respondent. It is also his case that himself and his parents are fond of children. It was then he was forced to disclose to his parents about the disease which respondent is suffering which caused depression to the parents of petitioner for the reason that because of the disease suffered by respondent the petitioner's life is spoiled for no fault of him. It is also his case that immediately after respondent came to know about the fact that her in-laws are aware of the disease through her husband she was more depressed resulting in disrespectful and rude attitude towards petitioner and his parents. Thereafter she started creating scene in the house and created unhealthy atmosphere in/the house. She would often go and stay in her parents house for days at length. Even the parents of respondent also supported the same and they did not bother to advise respondent. In the meanwhile, because of the constant abuse and disrespect shown by respondent, the parents of petitioner went back to their native place at Chennai. All these caused mental tension to petitioner that he could not withstand the torture that was meted out to him by respondent he started to leave the house immediately after taking bath at 7 am., and after finishing breakfast and would come back only at 10 pm., in the night. He started taking his lunch, dinner outside the house. In the meanwhile, respondent also started living separately in another room in the house and that she would cook for herself, in the meanwhile, an arrangement came in existence, where both of them had separate keys to the house and started living like strangers in the same house. However, after sometime respondent left matrimonial house informing the petitioner that she does not intend to live with him. 8. In sum and substance, the case of petitioner is that with the kind of infectious disease the respondent is suffering with infected and swelling wounds in and around the genital area, which is smelling and also ejecting pus with very bad odour, petitioner find it impossible to associate himself with respondent, inasmuch as, he does not find it comfortable either to sit near or talk to her with the kind of problem that she is undergoing. Hence, in view of the fact that his marriage could not be consummated, for no fault of him he is deprived of sexual enjoyment, denied his dream of having his own child in the wedlock, which is part and parcel of normal family life, he felt that his life is totally shattered and spoiled. Further, according to petitioner, the conduct of respondent and her family members in putting him in that situation amounts to mental cruelty to him and the intentional suppression of incurable disease of respondent is a serious lapse amounting to an act causing mental cruelty to petitioner. Therefore, on that ground he filed the aforesaid MC petition seeking decree of divorce. 9. In the proceedings before the court below the respondent on service of notice entered appearance filed statement of objections. In the statement of objections she admitted the facts as stated in paragraphs 1 to 4 of petition, which is about their marriage being arranged by elders, their education qualification and the avocation that they had and other aspects. However, the denial starts from the facts which are narrated in the petition pertaining to the incidents that had taken place immediately from the date of marriage. It is stated that the averment of petitioner that in the nuptial ceremony on the date of marriage she refused to have sex with petitioner on the ground that she is suffering from blood infection is false. According to her, it is the petitioner who could not successfully have sexual intercourse with her and it is because of his inability to have sex. She admits their wedding reception at Chennai, their stay in Chennai for two days, thereafter going to Munnar for honeymoon. She further states that during the period when she was in Munnar and other places between 10th to 14th of September 2003 she never refused to have physical relationship with petitioner, on the other hand it is the petitioner who tried to have sexual intercourse, but was not successful on all those days. She admits that after coming back to Bangalore at the instance of petitioner she met Dr. Ganesh who inturn recommended her to Dr. Prem, again Dr. Prem recommended her to Dr. Rusthum, where she underwent examination by Dr. Rusthum who prescribed her some vitamin tablets and also advised her to meet Dr. C.S. Rajan, who diagnosed the boils as Furunclosis. She admits that after coming back to Bangalore at the instance of petitioner she met Dr. Ganesh who inturn recommended her to Dr. Prem, again Dr. Prem recommended her to Dr. Rusthum, where she underwent examination by Dr. Rusthum who prescribed her some vitamin tablets and also advised her to meet Dr. C.S. Rajan, who diagnosed the boils as Furunclosis. That she was subsequently taken to Dr. K.S. Krupa Shankar, H.O.D, Dermatology in Manipal Hospital, Bangalore who opined differently regarding the diagnosis and stated that respondent is suffering from healed Hidradenitis Suppurativa, Hidradenitis Suppurativa in remission, Recurrent Furunclosis in remission and also advised for some blood tests. She also admits that she was advised to come back with an active lesion for biopsy and confirmation of diagnosis. However, she stated that subsequent to January 2004 till now she has not developed any active lesion to get the biopsy done and that as per the advise of Dr. Krupa Shankar the boil similar to one will not come in the way of marital life. She denied the averment that she was suffering from infectious disease which neither herself nor her family members disclosed to petitioner and or his parents prior to the marriage. 10. According to her, she is not suffering from any disease which would come in the way of leading happy marital life, the laboratory tests like, lipid profile, urine analysis, sugar level, hematology serum / plasma and immunology tests have all established that she does not have any serious problem. She also denied the averment regarding the opinion of Dr. Rajan about recurring of said disease even after surgical removal of said boils. In effect, so far as Doctors opinions are concerned, it is her case that the opinion of Dr. Rajan and Dr. Rusthum is against her interest and the same is not based on proper medical examination. But the opinion of Dr. Krupa Shankar is the correct opinion and according to that she is not suffering from the disease called Hidradenitis Suppurativa and as well as the opinion that it is incurable disease. She denied all the information that is collected by petitioner on web-site regarding the aforesaid disease and the averment to that effect in the petition. She denied the averment regarding non consummation of marriage. She denied all the information that is collected by petitioner on web-site regarding the aforesaid disease and the averment to that effect in the petition. She denied the averment regarding non consummation of marriage. In this regard, she goes a step ahead and makes a counter claim that failure for consummation of marriage is inability on the part of petitioner to have sexual intercourse with her, which is the main reason for non-consummation of marriage and not the imaginary disease that petitioner is trying to allege against her. 11. She also denied the averment that since petitioner informed his parents about respondent's disease, her behaviour was abusive towards petitioner and his parents in the house and as well as in the presence of relatives. The averment that she was creating scene and unhealthy atmosphere in the house and she was going to her parents house often and staying there for long days is also denied. Per contra, she made allegation against petitioner and his parents to say that they ill-treated her, inspite of that she was obedient and was trying to be a normal housewife by adjusting herself to petitioner's family. According to respondent, she has not caused any mental cruelty to petitioner, on the other hand, she was subjected to mental cruelty and physical assault by petitioner and his family members. She states that when things got worse, there was also an attempt to forcibly throw her out of the house. 12. That initially her father-in-law went back to Chennai. Thereafter, mother-in-law who stayed back treated her badly. After that petitioner took his mother to Chennai. At that time, she was made to go to her parents house and the key of house was also taken back. Thereafter, petitioner after reaching Chennai though called had informed her that she should not come back to matrimonial house till 22.4.2004 and only after that she was allowed to come to matrimonial house. That on 1st of September petitioner took the key of house back and subsequently present petition was filed, when she was living along with him in the said house. That after petition was filed, treatment to her became worse and petitioner was always trying to persuade and also threatened her to agree for filing a petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. That after petition was filed, treatment to her became worse and petitioner was always trying to persuade and also threatened her to agree for filing a petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. That during the middle of March 2005 petitioner locked the kitchen as she did not agree for dissolution of marriage and thereafter throw her out of the house with a warning to her not to come back. Inspite of that on 12.4.2005 she went to matrimonial house, waited in the balcony till 10.45 pm., neither petitioner nor his family members turn-up. Hence, the owner of tenanted property took pity on her, called her to their house and thereafter informed the petitioner about her presence. At that time, petitioner asked her to go back to her parents house either by taking Taxi or Auto. Since it was in the middle of the night the owner of rented property asked her to sleep in their house. That even thereafter all her attempts to go back to matrimonial house failed. Hence, she was forced to go and stay in her parents house. 13. With these rival contentions between the parties the court below proceeded to record evidence of parties, wherein petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and in support of his case produced and marked in all 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of respondent she examined herself as RW.1 and she produced and marked in all 13 documents as Exs.R1 to R13. The court below after recording evidence and after hearing arguments, based on the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record and also submission on behalf of parties, framed the following point for consideration: Whether the petitioner has proved that the respondent after the solemnization of her marriage with him, has treated him with cruelty which warrants for granting the relief of divorce? And proceeded to answer the same in the negative for the reason that petitioner has not proved that because of the ailment of respondent he could not have sexual intercourse with respondent from the date of marriage till date of filing of petition. That the same is not properly substantiated by adducing evidence of Doctors, who treated respondent. In that view of matter, pleadings and evidence of petitioner cannot be considered for grant of decree of divorce. 14. That the same is not properly substantiated by adducing evidence of Doctors, who treated respondent. In that view of matter, pleadings and evidence of petitioner cannot be considered for grant of decree of divorce. 14. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment the present appeal is filed on the ground that judgment and decree passed by court below is erroneous and contrary to facts. That there is failure on the part of court below in appreciating Exs.P1, P4, P6 to 8 and also Exs.R12 and 13, which prove beyond all reasonable doubt that respondent is suffering from the disease Hidradenitis Suppurativa. That there is error on the part of court below holding that petitioner has not proved that respondent is suffering from the aforesaid disease, though medical certificates are admitted, in the alternative there is also admission on the part of respondent in her objections statement which is not looked into. Further, the conclusion of court below that the absence of Doctors evidence is fatal to the case of petitioner, is incorrect. It is also contended that there is error on the part of court below in not considering the cross-examination of respondent, her admission regarding the nature of her disease, its gravity and admission of said disease being present around the genital area. That inspite of such admission court below has wrongly disbelieved that there is no consummation of marriage between the parties, particularly, when documents disclose that genital area being infected, possibility of sexual intercourse is impossible, is not properly appreciated by court below. That there is also an error on the part of court below in believing that sexual intercourse has not taken place due to the inability on the part of petitioner in the absence of acceptable evidence in that behalf. That there is also error in proper appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record and the admissions made therein. Further, there being no compatible evidence to demonstrate that petitioner had knowledge of disease which respondent was suffering prior to marriage itself, is sufficient proof of mental cruelty, which is totally ignored. 15. That there is also error in proper appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record and the admissions made therein. Further, there being no compatible evidence to demonstrate that petitioner had knowledge of disease which respondent was suffering prior to marriage itself, is sufficient proof of mental cruelty, which is totally ignored. 15. On going through the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record with reference to finding of the court below and also the grounds of appeal this Court find the following point arise for consideration: Whether the court below was justified in dismissing the petition filed by the husband seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? Heard the Counsel for appellant and respondent. On re-appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record in the light of the grounds of appeal this court answer the aforesaid point in the negative for the following: REASONS 16. The undisputed facts in this case are that petitioner and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnised on 1.9.2003 is not in dispute. So also their qualification, avocation and that their marriage was finalised by the elders of both the families is not in dispute. It is seen from the records that petitioner and respondent had not discussed the health problems that existed to each of them prior to their marriage. It is also not in dispute that petitioner and respondent were total strangers until their marriage was finalised by the elders in the Month of April 2003 and infact they got to know each other well only between April 2003 and the date of their engagement which took place on 11.5.2003. From 11.5.2003 till 1.9.2003 i.e., for a period of nearly four months petitioner and respondent have hardly met on two or three occasions as it has come out in the evidence. Naturally during that period they would not be able to exchange intimate details and also regarding health problems, more particularly, the problems which could have been localised to the genitals or the private parts of the parties. Therefore, the pleadings in this case clearly indicate that petitioner was totally unaware of any of the health problem of respondent-wife till he got married to her on 1.9.2003. Therefore, the pleadings in this case clearly indicate that petitioner was totally unaware of any of the health problem of respondent-wife till he got married to her on 1.9.2003. It could be rightly accepted that petitioner could have seen any health problem to respondent localised near her private parts, only after the marriage at the time of its consummation. 17. In this proceedings after the marriage was solemnised on 1.9.2003 nuptial ceremony was arranged on the same night in the house of the petitioner. It is stated that on that day respondent informed the petitioner that she has suffered some boils around genitals, therefore, it is not possible for her to have sexual intercourse with him. According to petitioner, such excuse was made by her not only on 1.9.2003 but also on next two to three days when they were together at Bangalore and Chennai, where the wedding reception took place on 5.9.2003. The averment of petitioner that he believed that it could be boils arisen due to contamination of blood cannot be discounted. In any event, he could not have expected his wife to have any serious problem only because the boils have erupted around the genitals. It is seen that consummation of marriage never took place while they were on their honeymoon in Munnar and other places between 10th and 14th of September 2003. 18. Here while taking a pause at this juncture if we notice the factual position regarding the relationship between the parties and what could have transpired between them at that crucial point of time, this Court cannot help but to believe the version of petitioner. As discussed earlier, petitioner-husband could not have doubted that respondent-wife has any serious illness. It is also possible that immediately after marriage probably because of various other pressures and other reasons if some small change in the health resulting in rashes or boils around the genitals or on any other part of the body cannot be viewed seriously. Probably petitioner also presumed the same and did not take a serious note of that, in any event to believe the version of respondent-wife that inspite of such boils being there, he made an attempt to have sexual intercourse and that it failed, is unacceptable. Probably petitioner also presumed the same and did not take a serious note of that, in any event to believe the version of respondent-wife that inspite of such boils being there, he made an attempt to have sexual intercourse and that it failed, is unacceptable. Even for a minute if this theory is accepted that there was an attempt on the part of petitioner and he could not consummate the marriage, it is but natural, as the act of sex between the husband and wife while it is taking place for the first time with the kind of anxiety and the innocence with which they start, the existence of this unpleasant boils, lesion and other things would definitely put-off any healthy mind in getting in to the beautiful act of sex, a socially accepted event, between the married husband and wife. Further, it is but natural that any husband would have felt that why not it be started on a day which is more conducive and when the wife is free of all these problems. If it is taken on this presumption the fact that petitioner did not take lead for consummation of marriage with respondent cannot be disbelieved. 19. Thereafter, it is seen that as loving husband the petitioner took interest in enquiring with respondent about since how long she had that problem and after coming to know that she has this problem from childhood he did not take serious note of that initially as could be seen from the pleadings and evidence of respondent-wife. It is seen that after coming to know the problem of respondent as a caring husband his first reaction is to see that she is taken to a Doctor and to get that problem cured at the earliest. In that behalf he also used his discretion to take-up this matter with one of his doctor cousin, Dr. Ganesh and tried to get the same medicated or treated without giving too much of importance to the problem. Infact, even after consulting Dr. Ganesh, he does not view that problem as a serious one and he only felt that his cousin doctor, Dr. Ganesh is advising him to meet Dr. Prem, a specialist in that problem and Dr. Prem inturn after examining respondent advised to meet Dr. Rusthum, another specialist in that problem. Even at that stage, he does not feel the enormity of problem. Ganesh is advising him to meet Dr. Prem, a specialist in that problem and Dr. Prem inturn after examining respondent advised to meet Dr. Rusthum, another specialist in that problem. Even at that stage, he does not feel the enormity of problem. Further, when he was advised by Dr. Rusthum to meet Dr. Rajan, Consultant Surgeon in skin for proper advise in the matter, he accepts that. Accordingly, he obliges in taking his wife to Dr. Rajan to get an opinion regarding the infection his wife is suffering and also to get the same properly diagnosed to see that it is cured at the earliest. It is only after coming to Dr. Rajan, the Surgeon he realised the seriousness of problem and he comes to know that respondent is suffering from "Hidradenitis Suppurativa", an infectious disease, which is there from her childhood, as she reveals to Dr. Rajan at the time of her examination. Infact, this she had also revealed to petitioner initially while furnishing the prescription slips issued by Dr. Venkat Ram, from whom she was getting treatment from her childhood. 20. On going through all these aspects it is clearly seen that the problem of respondent is not a simple eruption or rashes around the genital area and it is a chronic skin problem which was there right from her childhood for which she was treated by Dr. Venkat Ram prior to her marriage. It is seen that Dr. Rajan had advised the respondent for biopsy of infected area to analyse the gravity of problem and to suitably advise the treatment. It is seen that said Doctor also opined that infection might erupt subsequently since respondent has been suffering the same right from her childhood. It is seen even the opinion of Dr. Rajan did not deter the petitioner in taking further care of his wife and to see that her problem is cured. Dr. Rajan suggested that respondent should undergo surgery to remove the infected area. It is seen that at that stage respondent refused to undergo biopsy. Inspite of that petitioner took her for further treatment in Manipal Hospital to Dr. Krupa Shankar, who is Head of Department of Dermatology. The said Doctor after thoroughly examining respondent opined that respondent is suffering from a disease called Hidradenitis Suppurativa, which is an incurable disease. It is stated that said Doctor stated that the diagnosis made by Dr. Inspite of that petitioner took her for further treatment in Manipal Hospital to Dr. Krupa Shankar, who is Head of Department of Dermatology. The said Doctor after thoroughly examining respondent opined that respondent is suffering from a disease called Hidradenitis Suppurativa, which is an incurable disease. It is stated that said Doctor stated that the diagnosis made by Dr. Rajan regarding the said infection as 'Recurrant Furcunculosis' was the earlier stage of disease of Hidradenitis Suppurativa. It is only after coming to know that petitioner was upset with respondent, for the reason that she did not discuss all these things with him prior to marriage. 21. The fact that petitioner was upset with respondent cannot be taken as a strange act, inasmuch as, the fact that petitioner being a healthy male would have definitely thought of getting married to another healthy female to lead normal marital life which also includes sexual interaction between them to the best of the satisfaction of couple and any spouse would not be willing to get married to a person having chronic disease, more particularly, which is localised to their private parts or genitals which directly come in the way of their sexual life. In the instant case, petitioner being faced with such serious problem if he were to be feel that he is cheated by his wife, it cannot be found fault with. Further, it is seen that for any successful marriage a good and healthy sexual relationship is a must, when that itself is denied by deceit, definitely it would amount to mental cruelty, which cannot be taken very lightly. When such being the case, the feeling of petitioner that he is cheated by respondent and her parents is acceptable as genuine and normal feeling under such circumstances. 22. However, on going through the entire evidence it is seen that the statement of wife that there was an attempt on the part of petitioner to have sexual intercourse with her which he could not due to exertion and erection dysfunction are all nothing but a ruse to get over her physical problems which she suffered. 22. However, on going through the entire evidence it is seen that the statement of wife that there was an attempt on the part of petitioner to have sexual intercourse with her which he could not due to exertion and erection dysfunction are all nothing but a ruse to get over her physical problems which she suffered. Even assuming that the functioning of his sexual organ would be normal and that he is in normal mental state of mind to consummate marriage by having sexual intercourse, the very fact that respondent having such boils around the genitals and that they are oozing out with pus which causes aversion to get closer to her is normal in such circumstances. In such event, even for a normal and healthy man he would not get proper erection to have sexual intercourse with a woman of that kind of health condition. If respondent is trying to put the entire blame on petitioner for the same, it would be totally inhuman and cruel on her part. It is also seen that it is nothing but an attempt to suppress her shortcomings and also the fact that there is some kind of cheating on the part of herself and her parents in passing off this lady as a healthy bride to petitioner. Infact, the guilt of such suppression itself must be weighing larger on the mind of wife in trying to make such baseless allegations. 23. Further, it is seen that there is also allegation by respondent regarding ill-treatment by mother-in-law and husband and that they were not treating her properly, were not allowing her to cook and eating in her hands is far from truth, also the allegation that she was not permitted to come inside the house, she had to stand outside the house during night time and that she had to take shelter in the house of landlord are all not properly established with cogent evidence. In sum and substance the entire evidence regarding cruelty on the part of husband and mother-in-law appears to be in the nature of retaliation and cannot be accepted to be genuine, more particularly, looking in to the conduct of petitioner and his family members. In sum and substance the entire evidence regarding cruelty on the part of husband and mother-in-law appears to be in the nature of retaliation and cannot be accepted to be genuine, more particularly, looking in to the conduct of petitioner and his family members. As stated in earlier portion of this judgment right from the time of nuptial ceremony till about January 2005 for more than four to five months though petitioner did not have an opportunity to have normal sexual intercourse with his wife he did not make a big issue out of that. On the contrary, he went ahead meeting several Doctors, had the advise of his cousin and his Doctor friends to see that a permanent solution is secured to the problem of respondent even after seeing the prescription of Dr. Venkat Ram and also learning from his wife that she was suffering from such problem right from her childhood. It is only when he was informed by Dr. Rajan that said disease is quite serious he felt cheated for the first time and till such time his conduct is impeccable in taking care of his wife with love and affection. When he has realised that he is taken for a ride and he is cheated by suppressing all thee facts, it is but natural for him to lose faith and also affection for respondent, which cannot be found fault with. Therefore, this Court find that there is error on the part of court below in giving too much of importance for those details which have come in this proceedings as counter allegations on the part of wife in retaliation to the step taken by petitioner to seek divorce from respondent on the ground of cruelty. Therefore, that portion of the evidence and pleadings cannot be given too much of importance and that has to be seen with reference to her ailments. 24. Infact in this proceedings to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the allegation of respondent suffering from incurable disease respondent was referred to Vanivilas Hospital by order dated 10.1.2010. It is seen that pursuant to such a direction issued by this Court, respondent appeared before the Doctor of Victoria Hospital on 12.1.2011 as outpatient and she was examined by one Dr. S. Sacchidanand. It is seen that pursuant to such a direction issued by this Court, respondent appeared before the Doctor of Victoria Hospital on 12.1.2011 as outpatient and she was examined by one Dr. S. Sacchidanand. The said doctor in his report has opined as under: "I am of the opinion that at present there is no active disease, which need treatment. No evidence of Hydradenitis Suppurativa. Clinical diagnosis: Recurrent Furcunculosis (Burnt out case)" 25. It is seen that said Doctor has not given full details of the examination that he has conducted in identifying the disease. But unfortunately, the result he has stated is not that patient is not suffering from Hydradenitis Suppurative, on the contrary, he has stated that she is suffering from Recurrent Furcunculosis, which is another stage of aforesaid Hydradenitis Suppurative. In the said report he also says, presently that disease is not found and in the conclusion he says it is a burnt out case, i.e., the presence of such problem is not denied and no clear opinion regarding the patient not suffering from the aforesaid disease at any point of time is also not mentioned. In that view of matter, the opinion of Dr. S. Sacchindanand dated 12.1.2011 tallies with that of Dr. Raj Respondent an. Even otherwise, the opinion of Dr. Krupa Shankar also supports the case of petitioner. Nodoubt, it is said by Dr. Krupa Shankar that it will not come in the way of marital life, the Doctor is only required to give status of disease. It is not for the Doctor to give his opinion regarding whether parties could continue marital relationship or not, it is always left to their discretion, because based on Doctor's opinion parties cannot resume marital relationship with such serious disease. Whatever Dr. Krupa Shankar has stated regarding the disease would support the opinion of Dr. Rajan and others and also confirm the fact that respondent was suffering from aforesaid disease. But so far as his opinion that it would not come in the way of marital life is his personal opinion, which cannot be generalised regarding the choice of each individual. 26. When once petitioner has developed aversion to get closer to respondent because of the aforesaid disease with this certificate of Doctor that such disease would not come in the way of matrimonial relationship would not induce him to lead normal sexual life with his wife. 26. When once petitioner has developed aversion to get closer to respondent because of the aforesaid disease with this certificate of Doctor that such disease would not come in the way of matrimonial relationship would not induce him to lead normal sexual life with his wife. Further, such opinion also cannot make him to get-over the aversion which he has developed by looking in to the said disease when it was at its peak. It is also seen in the evidence that respondent has tried to make out as if that disease has not recurred from 2004 till date, but that cannot be believed. The said problem being one which is concentrated in and around the genitals and the lower portion of breast for outsiders it may not be seen unless such portion is exposed for Doctor for analysis. However, there is nothing on record to show that from 2004 till 2012 the respondent was undergoing check-up at regular monthly intervals or bimonthly intervals with any specialists regarding aforesaid disease and the Doctors certifying to the effect that said problem has not recurred over all these years. In that view of matter, the submission of counsel for respondent cannot be accepted as gospel truth, inasmuch as, that could only be a statement which is akin to what her parents have said about her health at the time of getting her married off to the petitioner. 27. In the light of aforesaid discussion this Court feel that the conduct of petitioner in taking utmost care inspite of health of his wife which she has stated to him on their nuptials and taking her to several Doctors is appreciable. However, it is only after coming to know that she is suffering from the aforesaid disease right from her childhood and that too after knowing that it is an incurable disease the aversion has developed to him to keep himself away from respondent which is but natural in the facts and circumstances of the case and there is nothing wrong in his behaviour. It is also normal for him to feel that he is subjected to mental cruelty in undergoing the pressure of going through all these problems without any fault of him and that too at the instance of respondent and her parents who suppressed all these facts from him prior to his marriage. It is also normal for him to feel that he is subjected to mental cruelty in undergoing the pressure of going through all these problems without any fault of him and that too at the instance of respondent and her parents who suppressed all these facts from him prior to his marriage. If only he were to be knowing about this problem even before marriage and getting married to her with full knowledge of the said problem, thereafter if he had changed his mind and said that he is subjected to mental cruelty, then the court below would be justified in holding that the conduct of respondent does not amount to mental cruelty, but not in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 28. In support of his case the learned counsel for appellant, petitioner in the court below relied upon the following two judgments: 1. In the case of Smt. Praveen Kumari Versus Man Mohan Kumar, reported in AIR 1984 DELHI 139, wherein the wife was suffering from the disease of epilepsy and which was suppressed from husband at the time of marriage and the husband after coming to know of the same sought for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty it is held as under: "Where the wife suffered from epilepsy prior to marriage during the period of engagement and soon after she was brought to the matrimonial home and the fact that the wife suffered from epilepsy during the period of engagement was concealed from the husband and his consent to the marriage was obtained by fraud, the annulment of marriage would be justified. 2. Under similar circumstances in the case of Tarlochan Singh Versus Jit Kaur, reported in AIR 1986 Punjab and Haryana 379, it is held as under: "Moreover, since the fact of the wife being a patient of schizophrenia was not disclosed to the husband before the marriage that would amount to matrimonial fraud. Therefore, in view of all the circumstances, the husband was entitled to a decree of divorce if not annulment of marriage, 1979, marriage LJ 107 (Punj &Har), Rel. on" Therefore, this Court in the light of the aforesaid discussion feel that the judgment and decree dated 6.2.2007 passed in MC. Therefore, in view of all the circumstances, the husband was entitled to a decree of divorce if not annulment of marriage, 1979, marriage LJ 107 (Punj &Har), Rel. on" Therefore, this Court in the light of the aforesaid discussion feel that the judgment and decree dated 6.2.2007 passed in MC. No.1814/2004 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, is required to be set aside and the petition filed by husband in the aforesaid proceedings is required to be allowed. 29. Accordingly, appeal is allowed, judgment and decree dated 6.2.2007 passed in MC.No.1814/2004 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, is set aside. Consequently, the petition filed by husband in MC.No.1814/2004 is allowed granting decree of divorce annulling the marriage solemnised on 1.9.2003 between the parties herein. Since both the parties are gainfully employed and there is no financial dependency on each other, question of considering grant of permanent alimony to respondent does not arise for consideration. No order as to costs.