ORDER
L. Dudhat, J.
1. The learned District Judge, Thane, has referred this matter to the High Court by his order dated 2-2-1993 passed in Marriage Petition No. 2 of 1992.
2. Petitioner in this case is the husband who had filed the aforesaid Marriage Petition No. 2 of 1992 in the Court of the District Judge, Thane, for a declaration that the marriage solemnised between the petitioner-husband and the respondent, his wife on 3-4-1983, is a nullity under Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. It was stated in the said petition that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised as per the Christian rites on 3-4-1983. About fifteen days after the marriage, the petitioner-husband left India for the Gulf countries on an employment and somewhere in the month of Oct. 1987 he returned to India. After his return to India from the Gulf countries, petitioner-husband learnt that the respondent had undergone an operation for excision of her fallopian tubes somewhere in Dec. 1976. According to the petitioner, due to the said operation for excision of her fallopian, tubes the respondent had lost fertility and, therefore, she could not conceive a child. It is the case of the petitioner-husband that had this fact been disclosed by the respondent-wife to the petitoner, the petitioner would not have married the respondent. According to the petitioner, it was only because of suppression of the aforesaid fact, the said marriage materialised and, therefore, since his consent to the aforesaid marriage was obtained by suppression vari, he, the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of nullity of his marriage with the respondent under Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.
3. It appears that on the date on which the aforesaid petition was filed before the learned District Judge, Thane, the said petition was maintainable in view of the decision of this High Court in Dnyaneshwar v. Surekha, AIR 1984 Bom 310. However, the said legal position underwent a change due to the subsequent decision of this High Court in Joseph John v. Leila Joseph, 1992 MLJ 1566. Due to the aforesaid subsequent decision, the petition ought to have been filed in this High Court, and, therefore, the trial Court referred the aforesaid petition for disposal by this High Court.
4. The learned counsel Mr. Abhay Oka appearing or behalf of the petitioner-husband submitted that the evidence as led by the petitioner conclusively shows that in Dec. 1976, the respondent-wife had been operated and her fallopian tubes were removed. Mr. Oka further stated that the petitioner stated the said fact in his examination-in-chief. Petitioner also produced certain medical certificates to lend support to his argument. The first medical certificate dated 16-1-1988 which is annexed at page forty-nine of the paper-book is Exhibit 33 given by Dr. J. H. Fonseca, Ex. Hon. Consulting Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Lokmanya Tiak Municipal General Hospital, Sion, Mumbai 400 022. The said medical certificate clearly shows that in the Dec. 1976, the respondent-wife was operated for removal of her fallopian tubes. The next medical certificate dated 30th July, 1990 given by Dr. Rustom P. Soonawala, Emeritus Prof. Obstetrics and Gynecology, which the petitioner relied upon is at page 52 of the paper-book, being Exhibit 36 in the lower Court. The said medical certificate also shows the problem of infertility in the case of the respondent-wife due to the operation which was performed in Dec. 1976. The aforesaid testimony of the petitioner-husband is virtually not challenged at all in the cross-examination by the respondent-wife. In view of this, the petitioner, in this case has conclusively proved that the marriage solemnised between the petitioner and the respondent according to Christian rites to 3-4-1986 was performed by the petitioner without having knowledge about the operation which the respondent underwent in Dec. 1976 and the result thereof and further that had this information been given by the respondent-wife to the petitioner-husband, the petitioner would not have given consent to the said marriage. The learned counsel Mr. Salvi appearing on behalf of the respondent-wife has also fairly conceded before us to the effect that due to the aforesaid operation performed in Dec. 1976, the respondent-wife is incapable to giving birth to a child. In view of this, according to us, this is a fit case wherein the marriage between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife be declared a nullity.
5. In this connection Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 are reproduced below:
'18. Petition for decree of nullity. Any husband or wife any present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court, praying that his or her marriage may be declared null and void.'
'19. Grounds of decree. -- Such decree may be made on any of the following grounds:
(1) that the respondent was impotent at the time of the marriage and at the time of institution of the suit;
(2) that the parties are within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity (whether natural or legal) or affinity;
(3) that either party was a lunatic or idiot at the time of the marriage;
(4) that the former husband or wife of either party was living at the time of the marriage, and the marriage with such former husband or wife was then in force.
Nothing in this section shall affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to make decrees of nullity of marriage on the ground that the consent of either party was obtained by force or fraud.'
In view of the last portion of Section 19, i. e. 'Nothing in this Section shall affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to make decree of nullity of marriage on the ground that the consent of either party was obtained by force or fraud.' this petition ought to have been filed in this High Court, since the allegation of the petitioner-husband was that the marriage solemnised between the petitioner and the respondent-wife was solemnised due to the fraud. Therefore, the learned District Judge, Thane, was right in referring this matter to the High Court for its decision.
6. Therefore, we allow this petition and pass a decree of nullity of the marriage of the petitioner-husband with the respondent-wife solemnised on 3-4-1983 under Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. There shall be no order as to costs. Office is directed to expedite the drawing of the decree. Petitioner is also directed to provide decree form to the Office within one seek from today. Certified and authenticated copies expedited.
Petition allowed.