Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1127 (AP)

Vijaya Nagini v. Ram Naren Mothe

2014-09-05

A.SHANKAR NARAYANA, R.SUBHASH REDDY

body2014
JUDGMENT R. Subhash Reddy, J. 1. This family Court appeal is filed by the respondent in OP No. 400 of 2011 aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2012 passed by the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, allowing the said O.P., which was filed under Section 12(1)(b) and (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, declaring the marriage of the appellant with the respondent, as null and void. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, we refer to the parties as arrayed in the O.P. 2. Petitioner-husband has filed the aforesaid O.P., with the following averments: Their marriage was solemnized on 24.6.2010 at Sri Kanyaka Parameshwari Temple, Vasavi Gardens, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and customs and it was also registered. After the marriage, he obtained VISA for the respondent and both of them left for USA on 4.7.2010, where he was working. The respondent, her mother and sisters suppressed the disease of the respondent, who was suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder, which is an incurable one, and suppressing the said fact, they played fraud on the petitioner to marry the respondent. The respondent is having immoral relationship with one Mr. W. Praveen Kumar prior to marriage, which continued even after marriage. The respondent, her mother and daughters who are required to reveal the material facts of the respondent suppressed and concealed them which amounts to fraud. The correspondence of the respondent with the said Praveen Kumar proves not only the illegal and immoral relationship but also imminent danger to his life, to continue with her. He also detected that the respondent is in continuous touch with the said Praveen Kumar and though he reprimanded her not to entertain any telephone calls from Praveen Kumar, the same were of no avail. The stay of the respondent with him is agonizing, physically torturous and interfering with his daily affairs which cannot be explained in words. The said Praveen Kumar, on 22nd and 23rd October, 2010, mailed him the chat he made with the respondent along with photos and Praveen Kumar also spoke to him on 21.10.2010 for more than an hour and told him to divorce the respondent as she is insane and manipulative. Respondent never allowed him to sleep as she was unable to sleep. His mother visited Dr. George Reddy, who was treating the respondent from August, 2007, on 17.11.2010 and the said Dr. Respondent never allowed him to sleep as she was unable to sleep. His mother visited Dr. George Reddy, who was treating the respondent from August, 2007, on 17.11.2010 and the said Dr. George Reddy gave prescriptions and certificate to his mother to carry medicines to USA and the respondent's sister revealed in November 2010 about the mental disorder of the respondent, which is known as Bipolar Mood Disorder and he was not aware of her disease or about her taking treatment. After administering the medicines prescribed by Dr. George Reddy for nine days, the respondent used to sleep five hours a day. The respondent accompanied his mother to India on 5.12.2010 from USA and she immediately joined her second sister at Hyderabad and is under active treatment of Dr. George Reddy since then. The respondent used to speak to Praveen Kumar hours together, when he was away from residence. 3. Pleading that the respondent was married to him by suppressing her mental disorder and also by suppressing the material fact of her illegal and immoral intimacy with Praveen Kumar, petitioner sought a decree for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent. 4. The respondent-wife filed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner. While admitting that she married the petitioner on 24.6.2010, it is averred in the counter as under: Her family has spent money for performing her marriage with the respondent. They gave Rs. 20,000/- for clothes, Rs. 5,000/- for purchasing bed, Rs. 3,000/- for pattu pancha and shela. Mr. Praveen Kumar is her cousin brother, she was in touch with him now and then but not continuously as alleged by the petitioner. She admitted that she suffered from Bipolar Mood Disorder before marriage but was not suffering with the said disease at the time of marriage or after marriage. Petitioner and his family members are aware of the fact that she suffered Bipolar Mood Disorder in the year 2007 and that she had taken treatment from Dr. George Reddy and the same was not cured. While the petitioner's mother was going to USA, her second sister requested the petitioner's mother to carry medicines prescribed by Dr. George Reddy only as a precautionary measure. She was not administered the medicines prescribed by Dr. George Reddy and the same was not cured. While the petitioner's mother was going to USA, her second sister requested the petitioner's mother to carry medicines prescribed by Dr. George Reddy only as a precautionary measure. She was not administered the medicines prescribed by Dr. George Reddy during her stay in USA and she was forced by the petitioner and his mother to go to India on 5.12.2010 stating that her presence is compulsory to take care of the petitioner's mother and father for sometime. She suffered Bipolar Mood Disorder only for a period of six months in the year 2007 and her symptoms were completely under control and she stopped medication, from February 2008 and worked as a lecturer in a college and used to do all the household work without vigil or watch and there were no complaints from the college. During her stay with the petitioner, both visited many places in USA and she had also attended parties at the place of the petitioner's friends and she never objected for attending any parties by the petitioner. The petitioner, without verifying truth either with her or her family members, filed the petition before the Family Court. By further pleading that the documents filed by the petitioner are forged and fabricated and that Bipolar Mood Disorder is a curable disease, respondent prayed for dismissal of the O.P., filed by the petitioner. 5. Before the Family Court, the petitioner was examined as PW1. His mother was examined as PW2. The consultant psychiatrist working in Mother Theresa hospital who was treating the respondent was examined as PW3 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. The respondent was examined as RW1, her mother was examined as RW2 and the sister of the respondent was examined as RW3. On behalf of the respondent Exs.R1 to R6 were marked. 6. The Family Court, having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in detail and having recorded a finding that the respondent was suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder, even prior to the marriage and after marriage, which is incurable and further the petitioner proved that the respondent is having illegal and immoral relationship with Praveen Kumar before and after the marriage, allowed the O.P., filed by the petitioner declaring the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent which was solemnized on 24.6.2010 at Kukatpally, Hyderabad as null and void. 7. 7. We have heard Sri Rama Rao Immaneni, learned Counsel for the respondent-wife and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner-husband. Having perused the impugned order, we have also gone through the entire evidence and other connected material on record. 8. Sri Rama Rao Immaneni, learned Counsel for the respondent-wife, has made the following submissions: It is true that the respondent has suffered Bipolar Mood Disorder in the year 2007, but after her taking treatment it was under control and thereafter she worked as lecturer and the same is evident from Exs.R1 to R4. Petitioner was aware that the respondent was suffering from the said disease even at the time of marriage and the same was not suppressed either by the respondent, her mother and sisters. As the disease is totally under control and as the respondent is discharging normal work and she also worked as lecturer, there is no reason for the petitioner to seek annulment of their marriage. The allegation of maintaining illegal and immoral relationship with Mr. Praveen Kumar is baseless. The said Praveen Kumar is none other than the son of the paternal uncle of the respondent who was closely moving with the family of the respondent. Due to some family disputes over certain properties, the said Praveen Kumar fabricated chat messages and e-mailed the same to the petitioner, basing on which, without any enquiry, petitioner filed the O.P., seeking annulment of marriage on the ground of suppression of mental disorder of the respondent and also suppression of illegal relationship of the respondent, with Praveen Kumar before and after the marriage. In view of the allegations made with regard to illegal relationship with the said Praveen Kumar, unless he is made party-respondent, O.P., filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Only on the ground that some indecent letters are addressed to the respondent by a third party, the same, by itself, cannot constitute illicit relationship, so as to annul the marriage. 9. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the respondent-wife has relied on the following judgments: * Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Shri Avinash Prasad, AIR 1967 SC 581 ; * Smt. Lata Kamat v. Vilas, AIR 1989 SC 1477 ; * Smt. Kajal Chowdhury v. Dilip Chowdhury, AIR 2004 Cal. 113 . 10. 9. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the respondent-wife has relied on the following judgments: * Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Shri Avinash Prasad, AIR 1967 SC 581 ; * Smt. Lata Kamat v. Vilas, AIR 1989 SC 1477 ; * Smt. Kajal Chowdhury v. Dilip Chowdhury, AIR 2004 Cal. 113 . 10. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner-husband has made the following submissions: The mental disorder which is admittedly suffered by the respondent in the year 2007 is not curable. The respondent, her mother and family members who are responsible for the marriage have suppressed the said fact and obtained consent of the petitioner for marriage by playing fraud. There is abundant evidence on record to show that the respondent is maintaining illegal and immoral relationship with Praveen Kumar before and after the marriage and the said material fact was suppressed by playing fraud. The Family Court pronounced the order on 17.9.2012 and copy of the order was furnished on 12.10.2012. Appeal was to be filed on or before 11.11.2012, which was not done and thereafter petitioner has remarried on 18.11.2012, which is valid in view of the provision under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. When appeal was filed by the respondent with condonation of delay, the factum of remarriage of the petitioner was stated in the counter filed opposing the delay petition. The petitioner is having a child who was born after re-marriage. 11. In view of the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, two important aspects arise for consideration in this appeal. Petitioner sought dissolution of marriage under Section 12(1)(b) and (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner is having a child who was born after re-marriage. 11. In view of the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, two important aspects arise for consideration in this appeal. Petitioner sought dissolution of marriage under Section 12(1)(b) and (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Before proceeding further, we feel, it is apposite to extract Section 12(1)(b) and (c) of the Act, which reads thus: "Voidable marriages.--(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely:-- (a) that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotence of the respondent; or (b) that the marriage is in contravention of the condition specified in clause (ii) of Section 5; or (c) that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner was required under Section 5 as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act, 1978 (2 of 1978)] the consent of such guardian was obtained by force 14 or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent." 12. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that if consent of one of the parties to the marriage is obtained by fraud or suppression of any material fact, the same is a ground to seek annulment of marriage, by seeking decree of nullity. In this case, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondent is suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder, which is incurable and though she has suffered such disorder even prior to the marriage, the petitioner was never informed about the same. PW1, the petitioner, in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief-examination, has given the details preceding the marriage and also about the marriage function. In the chief-affidavit, he stated as follows: He met the respondent for the first time on 23.1.2010 in the house of Sri N.S. Charya, who is the common friend of their families. Later he went back to USA and came to India on 19.6.2010 from USA and he has seen the respondent on the day preceding the marriage, i.e., on 23.6.2010 at 8.00 pm and the marriage was celebrated in the early hours on 24.6.2010. Later he went back to USA and came to India on 19.6.2010 from USA and he has seen the respondent on the day preceding the marriage, i.e., on 23.6.2010 at 8.00 pm and the marriage was celebrated in the early hours on 24.6.2010. During her stay in USA, her behaviour was not normal, she was behaving in an arrogant manner and he observed that her moods were changing from time to time. After marriage, during her stay with his family for 9 days in India, he noticed the irritable behaviour of the respondent, but he has not taken it seriously. Smt. Subba Laxmi, the mother of the respondent, who was staying in a rented room in Kukatpally, vacated on 4.7.2010, distributed movable assets among her three daughters and left to Vellore to live with her eldest daughter Smt. Madhavi. She asked her second daughter Smt. Srivalli to deliver a box containing cloths, books, personal belongings and official records of the respondent at his parents' residence at Domalguda and the box was delivered on 18.7.2010 and the same was not opened by his parents with a view that they were not so important and it was stored in his bedroom in the 1st floor. After their arrival in USA in the month of July 2010, he noticed continuous talk of the respondent with Praveen Kumar. He asked her to stop the same but she replied that he is her cousin brother, as such; he could not become suspicious about their illicit relationship. The said Praveen Kumar has sent him an e-mail which contains chat of the respondent with him from July to October along with 7 photographs showing the intimate relationship shared between them on 22 and 23.10.2010. (Exs. A10 to A18). The said Praveen Kumar himself had spoken to him on telephone on 22.10.2010 and revealed his illicit relationship with the respondent and told him to divorce the respondent who is insane and manipulative. The respondent has received a laptop presented by Praveen Kumar which was purchased by him online and delivered in USA and the receipt and purchase order of the laptop are marked as Exs.A24 and A25. 13. Though the petitioner, as PW1, is cross-examined at length, nothing adverse is elicited on the allegations made by the petitioner. 14. The respondent has received a laptop presented by Praveen Kumar which was purchased by him online and delivered in USA and the receipt and purchase order of the laptop are marked as Exs.A24 and A25. 13. Though the petitioner, as PW1, is cross-examined at length, nothing adverse is elicited on the allegations made by the petitioner. 14. In the cross-examination, petitioner has stated that he did not find any Bipolar Mood Disorder or any other mental disorder while he talked to the respondent, on phone, prior to marriage. He has denied the suggestion that respondent suffered Bipolar Mood Disorder only for a period of 6 months in the year 2007 due to demise of her father and the same was informed to him. He further stated in the cross-examination that he is not claiming nullity of marriage with the respondent on the ground of adultery. 15. Smt. Vijaya Laxmi Mothe, the mother of the petitioner, is examined as PW2. In the affidavit filed in lieu of chief-examination, while narrating the entire facts leading to the marriage of her son with the respondent, she stated that when she was in India, her son used to speak to her on telephone and narrated the behaviour of the respondent. She stated that she was never informed that respondent was suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder and, in her deposition, she stated that after obtaining telephone number of the consultant Doctor of the respondent, Dr. George Reddy on 16.11.2010 from the second sister of the respondent by name Srivalli, herself and her husband went to Mother Theresa hospital and met Dr. George Reddy, who informed them that the respondent was under his treatment. The mother of the petitioner further stated that she left to USA on 23.11.2010 and in view of the mental disorder of the respondent, to have affordable treatment, she came back to India along with the respondent and left the respondent in the house of her sister Smt. Srivalli. She stated that she visited Dr. George Reddy on 6.12.2010 and 13.12.2010 along with her husband and on 12.12.2010 her husband traced out the medical transcriptions from the box which was kept in their house. She stated that she visited Dr. George Reddy on 6.12.2010 and 13.12.2010 along with her husband and on 12.12.2010 her husband traced out the medical transcriptions from the box which was kept in their house. She was also cross-examined at length and except stating that she spoke to the respondent on telephone and that her behaviour was normal and she was at home when the respondent went to USA, nothing adverse is elicited in her cross-examination. 16. PW3, Dr. George Reddy, is the Doctor who treated the respondent and he was examined on behalf of the petitioner. In his deposition, Dr. George Reddy stated that the respondent consulted him in the year 2007 and Ex.P20 and Ex.A25 are the prescriptions issued by him during the year 2007-08. He stated that when he was treating the respondent, there was one episode of suicidal thought and he prescribed medicines-Decorate 250 Mg, Lithosun SR 450 Mg. and Olanpra 5 Mg., which are used for treating mood disorder. He further stated that the symptom of this mental disorder is swing in moods and during the phase of this illness the patient is unaware of the consequences of what he or she is doing and the said illness of the respondent is relapsed in November, 2010 when the she was in USA; the dosage of medicine is increased as the symptoms of illness in that episode increased. He further stated that after return of the respondent from USA, she was under his treatment. He also stated that the respondent was under his treatment long before her marriage, but she stopped treatment before marriage. 17. On behalf of the petitioner, medical prescriptions were filed under Exs.P11 and P12. Diagnosis reports were filed under Ex.P17 and bunch of prescriptions was filed under Ex.P20. Online purchase order of laptop which is gifted by Praveen Kumar to the respondent and its receipt are marked as Exs.P8 and P9. 18. The respondent was examined as RW1. In her deposition, she stated that her father worked as U.D.C. and died in 2004 itself and her mother is a retired teacher and she is the youngest of three daughters. 18. The respondent was examined as RW1. In her deposition, she stated that her father worked as U.D.C. and died in 2004 itself and her mother is a retired teacher and she is the youngest of three daughters. She further stated that before marriage she was working in Pune and due to health problem she resigned the job and when she was in Pune she got episode of Bipolar Mood Disorder and was treated for the period from August, 2007 to February, 2008. She further stated that before marriage her mother and her second sister informed the parents of the petitioner about her suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder and they haven not given the prescriptions of her treatment with Dr. George Reddy. She further stated that the said Praveen Kumar was not in touch with her after she left to USA and was only in contact with her on telephone occasionally. She further stated in her deposition that Praveen Kumar has purchased DELL laptop online (Ex.P8) and it was delivered in USA at her house and she stated that it is a gift from her paternal aunt. With regard to the photographs and bunch of papers containing e-mail chats, filed on behalf of the petitioner, she stated that she is not in the photographs shown to her and the person in the photographs looks like Praveen Kumar and she does not know who the female person is. She has denied the suggestion that she went to Ooty along with Praveen Kumar and the photographs were taken there. While denying the suggestion that Ex.P7 is the voice mail record of Praveen Kumar, she stated that she used to speak occasionally with Praveen Kumar. With regard to medical prescriptions, she has stated that all the previous prescriptions of her treatment were kept in the box given by her mother which were kept in the petitioner's parents house in Hyderabad. 19. She was also cross-examined at length. In her cross-examination, while denying the allegation of immoral and illicit relationship with Praveen Kumar, she stated that the said Praveen Kumar is her cousin and she was in touch with him now and then but not continuously as alleged by the petitioner. 19. She was also cross-examined at length. In her cross-examination, while denying the allegation of immoral and illicit relationship with Praveen Kumar, she stated that the said Praveen Kumar is her cousin and she was in touch with him now and then but not continuously as alleged by the petitioner. She has admitted the allegation that she was suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder before marriage, but, at the same time, she further stated that she was not suffering from the said disease at the time of marriage or after the marriage. She further stated that petitioner and his family members were informed that she suffered Bipolar Mood Disorder in the year 2007 and has taken treatment from Dr. George Reddy. With regard to photographs and e-mail chats sent by Praveen Kumar to the petitioner, she has stated that the same are fabricated by Praveen Kumar and she is taking appropriate criminal action against him for fabrication of the photographs and the e-mails. 20. Smt. W. Subba Laxmi, the mother of the respondent, was examined as RW2. In her deposition, she has stated that after the marriage of the respondent, she vacated the house at KPHB colony by distributing all her belongings to her three daughters and she kept the belongings of the respondent along with her medical prescriptions in a carton and handed over the same to Smt. Sreevalli, who, in turn, delivered the same in the house of the parents of the petitioner. She admitted that the respondent suffered Bipolar Mood Disorder for the first time between January and August 2007 and was treated by Dr. George Reddy. She has denied the knowledge of relapse of the said disease to the respondent in November 2010. 21. The second sister of the respondent, Smt. Sreevalli, was examined as RW3. In her cross-examination, she stated that her sister, i.e., the respondent, did not suffer any episode of Bipolar Disorder in November, 2010 in USA. At the same time, she has stated that she has given the address of Dr. George Reddy to the parents of the petitioner in November, 2010. 22. Having regard to the evidence on record, it is to be examined whether the respondent, her mother or sisters have suppressed the material fact that the respondent was suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder before marriage and obtained consent of the petitioner for marriage by suppressing the same. George Reddy to the parents of the petitioner in November, 2010. 22. Having regard to the evidence on record, it is to be examined whether the respondent, her mother or sisters have suppressed the material fact that the respondent was suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder before marriage and obtained consent of the petitioner for marriage by suppressing the same. The other aspect which is to be examined is, whether the respondent maintained illegal and immoral relationship with Praveen Kumar as alleged by the petitioner. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the respondent did not dispute suffering of Bipolar Mood Disorder in the year 2007. Though it is her case that she suffered such disorder when her father died, but it has come in the evidence that her father died in the year 2004, but not 2007. It is the specific and consistent case of the petitioner, which is supported by the evidence of his mother, PW2, that they were never informed that the respondent was suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder before marriage and the respondent, her mother and sisters played fraud by obtaining consent of the petitioner for marriage by concealing such material fact. But, the respondent all through maintained that petitioner and his family members are aware of such disease suffered by her. It is not the case of the respondent, her mother and sisters that petitioner and his family members were informed about the disease suffered by the respondent, at the time of settlement of the marriage or before the marriage. Except stating that petitioner and his family members are aware of the disease suffered by the respondent, they have not discharged their burden by showing that they have informed the petitioner and his family members about the disease suffered by the respondent before marriage. Except stating that petitioner and his family members are aware of the disease suffered by the respondent, they have not discharged their burden by showing that they have informed the petitioner and his family members about the disease suffered by the respondent before marriage. In support of the claim of the respondent and her family members that information was given to the petitioner and his family members about the disease suffered by the respondent, it is the case of the respondent that the box containing the medical prescriptions was kept in the house of the parents of the petitioner; as such they are aware of the same, but, from the evidence it appears that, after the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent, the mother of the respondent vacated the house at Kukatpally, distributed movable properties among her three daughters and left for Vellore to live with her first daughter. It is specifically stated that the medical prescriptions, original records and other belongings of the respondent were kept in a box and handed over to the second sister of the respondent, who, in turn, kept it in the house of the parents of the petitioner in Hyderabad. However, from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is clear that though such box was kept in the house of the parents of the petitioner, the same was not opened and kept in the bedroom of the petitioner as they were not informed of any such prescriptions inside. When the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, which is supported by the medical evidence of PW3, is considered along with the evidence of the respondent and her family members, it supports the case of the petitioner that neither he nor his family members were informed about such disease suffered by the respondent. Merely stating that the box containing prescriptions and other records was handed over and kept in the house of the parents of the petitioner will not dispel the allegation of the petitioner and his family members that they were not informed about the disorder suffered by the respondent before the marriage or at the time of marriage. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee has placed before us a copy of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee has placed before us a copy of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC. A perusal of the said manual indicates that Bipolar I Disorder in community samples has varied from 0.4% to 1.6% and the average age at onset is 20 for both men and women and Bipolar I Disorder is a recurrent disorder-more than 90% of individuals who have a Single Manic Episode go on to have future episodes. It is manifest from the said manual that the disorder suffered by the respondent is a recurrent one and is not totally reversible. Having regard to the same and also the evidence on record, we are of the view that the respondent has suppressed the material fact that she was suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder either at the time of marriage or before the marriage and obtained consent of the petitioner for marriage. Coming to the next aspect, viz., the allegation of the petitioner that respondent is continuing her illegal and immoral relationship with Praveen Kumar, we find that there is substance in such allegation having regard to the evidence on record. Though the respondent has stated that the said Praveen Kumar is his paternal uncle's son, the specific allegation of the petitioner is that she is having immoral relationship with Praveen Kumar. Even in her deposition, the respondent clearly admitted that she was in contact with Praveen Kumar, but, at the same time, she denied the allegation of immoral relationship with him. But, it is to be noticed that the said Praveen Kumar sent a bunch of e-mails to the petitioner stating that he and the respondent shared a special and intimate relationship for over 8 to 10 years and also stated that the respondent does not love the petitioner and she also wanted him to come to USA. The respondent has categorically admitted her conversation with the said Praveen Kumar even after marriage. Further, when the pictures showing intimate moments of the respondent with Praveen Kumar were confronted during the cross-examination of the respondent, she has stated that the male person in the picture appears to be Praveen Kumar, but she does not know who the female person in the picture is. Such answers given by the respondent are evasive. Further, when the pictures showing intimate moments of the respondent with Praveen Kumar were confronted during the cross-examination of the respondent, she has stated that the male person in the picture appears to be Praveen Kumar, but she does not know who the female person in the picture is. Such answers given by the respondent are evasive. A perusal of photographs clearly reveals the intimate relationship maintained by the respondent with Praveen Kumar. It may not be a case of seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of adultery, but, however, it is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent was having immoral relationship with a third person, which is being continued, and such fact is concealed while obtaining his consent for marriage. Further, even from the deposition of RW1, it is clear that after marriage, when the respondent was staying in USA along with the petitioner, the said Praveen Kumar gifted her laptop and the same is acknowledged by the respondent and in proof of the purchase and delivery of laptop, Exs.P8 and P9 are marked on behalf of the petitioner. If the allegation of the petitioner, that Praveen Kumar has informed him through e-mail about the immoral relationship the respondent shared with him, is examined with reference to the documentary evidence under Exs.P6, P8 and P9, it totally supports the case of the petitioner that before and after the marriage the respondent is continuing such immoral relationship, with the said Praveen Kumar. Maintaining such relationship by suppressing material facts at the time of marriage and continuing such relationship even after marriage and also receiving laptop as a gift from the said Praveen Kumar, do constitute grounds for annulment of marriage. It is clear from the evidence that Praveen Kumar has been maintaining illegal relationship with the respondent for about 7 to 8 years prior to the marriage of the respondent with the petitioner. Petitioner has clearly established the illegal and immoral relationship of the respondent with Praveen Kumar and also suppression of such fact by the respondent. 23. It is clear from the evidence that Praveen Kumar has been maintaining illegal relationship with the respondent for about 7 to 8 years prior to the marriage of the respondent with the petitioner. Petitioner has clearly established the illegal and immoral relationship of the respondent with Praveen Kumar and also suppression of such fact by the respondent. 23. Though learned Counsel for the respondent-wife has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Mohini Srivastava's case (supra), in support of her case that merely basing on some letters no inference of illegal relationship can be drawn, however, in this case, it is to be noted that apart from the documentary evidence, i.e., e-mail chats and photographs, there is also abundant evidence on record to support the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent is involved in illegal and immoral relationship with Praveen Kumar. Learned Counsel for the respondent has further relied on the decision in the case of Smt. Lata Kamat's case (supra), in which it is stated that even though second marriage is contracted by the husband the appeal cannot be dismissed as infructuous. We are in agreement with the view that the appeal is not infructuous and the same is to be adjudicated on merits. The said judgment would not render any assistance to the case of the respondent-wife as much as the present appeal is being disposed of on merits. He also relied on the judgment in the case of Smt. Kajal Chowdhury's case (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if second marriage is contracted by the husband after three days of expiry of the limitation, contracting of such marriage during pendency of appeal would be hit by mischief of provision of the Act. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the said judgment would also be of no avail to the claim of the respondent-wife. 24. On the other hand, in the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-husband Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee also in the case of Lata Kamat v. Vilas (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the benefit of Section 15 also will apply to decree passed under Section 12 of the Act. Further, in the judgment in the case of Ashutosh Kumar v. Anjali Srivastava, AIR 2009 All. Further, in the judgment in the case of Ashutosh Kumar v. Anjali Srivastava, AIR 2009 All. 100 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that limitation contemplated under Family Courts Act, 1984 would prevail over the limitation prescribed under the Hindu Marriage Act; thus limitation of 30 days prescribed under the Family Courts Act, 1984, would not apply. Furthermore, in the case of Vandana J. Kasliwal v. Jitendra N. Kasliwal, AIR 2007 Bom. 115 , relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-husband, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that playing fraud by non-disclosure of material fact is ground for annulment of marriage. The said judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-husband support the case of the petitioner-husband. Though it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent-wife that the said Praveen Kumar is not made party-respondent before the Court below and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside, it is to be noted that no allegation of adultery is made by the petitioner-husband so as to seek dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. If a petition is filed under Section 13 as per the Rules framed under the Act, the adulterer should be made party, but we are of the view that it is not necessary that the said Praveen Kumar should be made party where annulment is sought for, on the ground of suppression of material facts. 25. For the foregoing reasons, and having regard to the evidence referred above, we are also of the view that respondent was married to the petitioner by suppressing material fact, viz., her suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder and also the relationship maintained by her with Praveen Kumar prior to and after marriage. As such, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this appeal stand closed. No order as to costs.