Sanjeev Narula JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J.
1. By way of the present appeal, the Appellant-wife has impugned the judgment dated 22nd February, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Judgment') passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby the Court, while rejecting the relief sought under Section 12(1)(a) and (c), has allowed the petition of the respondent by granting divorce under Section 13(1)(ia), of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the HMA').
Brief facts:
2. The brief background of the case is that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 24th June, 2012 at Delhi as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies. At the time of solemnization of the marriage, the Respondent husband's marital status was that of a divorcee and Appellant wife was a bachelorette. After the marriage parties lived together in Singapore from 1st July, 2012 till 26th August, 2012. The marriage was also registered in Delhi on 31st August, 2012.
3. The Respondent initially preferred a petition seeking a decree of nullity of marriage under Section 12(1)(a) and (c) of the HMA, on two grounds, that the marriage could not be consummated due to Appellant's impotency and that his consent was obtained by concealing several material facts related to the psychological disposition of the Appellant, knowing which, he would not have consented for the marriage.
4. In the Written Statement filed before the Trial Court, the Appellant inter-alia pleaded that: (i) the Respondent was suffering from impotency (erectile dysfunction) which was the true cause of non-consummation of marriage, (ii) the parents of the Respondent had a quarrelsome nature, (iii) the first wife of the Respondent was also tortured by the parents of the Respondent, (iv) Respondent's parents demanded dowry, (v) cruelty and misappropriation of dowry articles, and (vi) the Respondent thrashed the Appellant badly in front of his parents on 30th June, 2012.
5. Placing reliance on Appellant's written statement, the Respondent amended his petition and additionally sought relief of divorce on the ground that the allegations made in the written statement were false and had caused him mental cruelty. On the basis of amended pleadings, vide order dated 1st August, 2016, the Trial Court framed the following issues:
(1) "Whether the marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotence of the respondent? OPP
(2) Whether the consent of the petitioner for marriage was obtained by force or fraud? OPP
(3) Whether the respondent after solemnization of marriage has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP
(4) Whether petitioner is entitled to decree of nullity against the respondent? OPP
(5) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce? OPP
(6) Relief."
6. To substantiate the case, the Respondent examined himself (PW1) and one Dr. Prof. Anant Kumar, (PW2), as expert witness, who was Chairman, Urology, Renal Transplant and Robotics of Max Hospital, Saket, New Delhi. On the other hand, the Appellant produced six witnesses in support of her case. After the conclusion of trial and on the basis of the evidence produced, the Trial Court concluded that the Respondent had failed to prove that the marriage had not been consummated owing to the impotency of the Appellant. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 enumerated above was decided against the Respondent. Next, the Learned Trial Court held that no material facts were concealed by the Appellant when the Respondent consented to the marriage and therefore, it could not be sai........