Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree

"Non-disclosure of significant health conditions before marriage, coupled with false allegations post-marriage, constitutes cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act." – Justices Biren Vaishnav and Nisha M. Thakore. Gujarat High Court dismissed two appeals by Dr. Mayuriben Mudhava challenging the dissolution of her marriage and the rejection of her restitution plea. The court upheld the Family Court's findings that Dr. Mayuriben's concealment of her Thalassemia Minor condition and subsequent conduct, including filing false allegations against her husband and in-laws, amounted to cruelty. It also directed the husband, Dr. Shaileshbhai Mundhava, to pay a sum of ₹10,00,000 as compensation for the welfare of their child.
The parties, both doctors, married on March 12, 2012, after connecting through the internet. The husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty, while the wife filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9. Both petitions were adjudicated by the Family Court, which granted the husband's divorce plea and dismissed the wife's restitution claim. Aggrieved by this decision, the wife appealed to the High Court.
The husband alleged that the wife had concealed her Thalassemia Minor condition before marriage, which only came to light during her pregnancy. The wife countered that she had disclosed her condition during their online conversations, a claim disputed by the evidence presented.
The court found that the wife had failed to disclose her Thalassemia Minor condition, a fact she knew was material given the husband's same condition. The court observed:
"Before entering into marriage, it was a moral obligation of the appellant-wife to disclose her health condition, especially since her concealment led to complications during pregnancy and a child suffering from the same condition."
The court noted that the wife had made unfounded allegations against the husband and his family, including claims of forced abortion and coercion to visit a priest for sex determination medication. It remarked:
"The allegations of coercion to consume sex-change pills are incredulous and unbecoming of a highly qualified doctor."
The court also took into account the emotional and reputational damage caused to the husband by letters written to authorities accusing him of extramarital affairs and financial impropriety.
The court acknowledged the husband's financial contributions towards the medical care of their child, born with Thalassemia Minor. It stated:
"The respondent-husband's care and financial support for the child's treatment demonstrate a commitment that belies the allegations of cruelty made against him."
The court dismissed both appeals, affirming the divorce decree and rejecting the restitution claim. It held that the wife’s actions constituted cruelty severe enough to warrant dissolution of the marriage. On the issue of alimony, the court directed the husband to pay ₹10,00,000 as compensation for the child's welfare, considering his substantial financial contributions to the child's medical care.
The court concluded: "The cumulative conduct of the appellant-wife, including concealment and post-marriage allegations, justifies the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court."
This judgment reinforces the principle that non-disclosure of material facts before marriage, combined with subsequent unfounded allegations, can constitute cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. The case also underscores the judiciary's balanced approach in addressing spousal misconduct while safeguarding the interests of the child involved.

Date of Decision: November 22, 2024