Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Rajesh Dukiya vs Champa on 13 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:31168-DB] (1 of 8) [CMA-1774/2024]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1774/2024
CNR: RJHC010407292024
URN: CMA / 4199U / 2024
Rajesh Dukiya S/o Shri Jetha Ram Dukiya, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Village And Post Badu, Tehsil Parbatsar, Distt. Didwana-
Kuchaman, Raj.
----Appellant
Versus
Champa D/o Chotu Ram Geela, Aged About 27 Years, W/o
Rajesh Dukiya, Presently Residing At Geela Ki Dhani, Dhani
Mamdoli, Tehsil Makrana, Distt. Nagaur, Raj. ----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chirag Mathur with
Mr. Nikhil Saran
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi with
Mr. Ramprakash Dudi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Order
13/07/2026
1. Heard.
2. The present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 (for brevity “the Act of 1955”) has been filed by the
appellant being aggrieved by the order and decree dated
15.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1
Parbatsar, District Didwana-Kuchaman (Rajasthan), in Civil Misc.
(H.M. Act) Case No.17/2023, titled as “Rajesh Dukiya Vs.
Champa”, vide which the petition filed by the appellant under
Section 12 of the Act of 1955, has been dismissed.
3. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘husband’) and the
respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘wife’) solemnised their
marriage on 30.11.2021. The appellant/husband filed a petition
under Section 12 of the Act of 1955 seeking annulment of the
marriage. The allegations made in support of the petition are that
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:11:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 08:36:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31168-DB] (2 of 8) [CMA-1774/2024]
the consent of the husband was obtained by suppressing the
material fact that the wife was in relationship with another person
and was pregnant prior to or at the time of the marriage.
4. It is stated that the engagement between the parties took
place in the year 2013 and the marriage between them was
solemnised on 30.11.2021. The pleadings also reflect that the
husband’s parents and family members suspected that the
respondent was pregnant after noticing her physical appearance
about one month after the marriage. The pleadings further show
that the wife underwent a sonography on 01.04.2022 and the
sonography report revealed that she had a pregnancy of
approximately 22 weeks. Thereafter, at the instance of the
husband, she again underwent a sonography on 09.04.2022 and
the report of the said sonography revealed that she had a
pregnancy of approximately 23 weeks.
5. The pleadings of the appellant are not specific as to whether
the petition for annulment was based on Section 12 (1)(c) or
Section 12 (1)(d) of the Act of 1955.
6. The impugned order reflects that the wife’s pregnancy was
taken as the principal ground for seeking annulment of the
marriage before the learned trial court. After hearing both the
parties, the petition was treated as one filed under Section 12 (1)
(d) of the Act of 1955 and the learned trial court held that the
petition was barred by limitation.
7. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been
preferred.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant husband
submits that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated
the pleadings. According to him, the pleadings reflect that
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:11:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 08:36:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31168-DB] (3 of 8) [CMA-1774/2024]
annulment was sought on two grounds. The first ground is that
the consent for marriage was obtained by suppression of a
material fact i.e., the respondent wife was in a relationship with
another person and the second ground is that the suspicion
entertained by the family members, coupled with the medical
reports, clearly demonstrates that the respondent-wife had
conceived prior to the marriage with the appellant. Consequently,
it is contended that she was pregnant on the date of the marriage,
thereby attracting the provisions of Section 12(1)(d) of the Act of
1955.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent wife submits
that even if the case is examined on the basis of Section 12(1)(c)
of the Act of 1955, the pleadings clearly reflect that the appellant
had definite knowledge of the alleged fraud on 09.04.2022.
Accordingly, if the said date is taken as the date of discovery of
the alleged fraud for the purpose of limitation, the petition having
been filed on 15.04.2023, was instituted beyond the prescribed
period of one year and is therefore, barred by limitation.
10. The admitted pleadings, which are not in dispute, are that
the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 30.11.2021
and the engagement took place in the year 2013.
11. The pleadings also reflect that about one month after the
marriage, the family members suspected that the respondent wife
was pregnant on account of her physical appearance. The
pleadings further reflect that on 01.04.2022, the sonography
report was brought to the notice of the appellant husband. A
perusal of the report reveals that the pregnancy was of
approximately 22 weeks and, if that period is taken into
consideration, it prima facie indicates that the respondent had
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:11:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 08:36:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31168-DB] (4 of 8) [CMA-1774/2024]
conceived prior to the date of her marriage with the appellant. It
is also specifically pleaded by the husband that, at his instance,
the wife underwent another sonography on 09.04.2022 and the
said sonography report revealed pregnancy of approximately 23
weeks. Thus, at least by 09.04.2022, the appellant had definite
material before him indicating that he had knowledge of the
respondent’s pregnancy, which, according to him, had been
conceived prior to the marriage.
12. This date of 09.04.2022 may be taken as the date of
discovery of the relevant facts for the purpose of determining
whether the petition is within the period of limitation on the
grounds available under Section 12 (1)(c) or Section 12 (1)(d) of
the Act of 1955. Section 12 of the Act of 1955 reads as under: –
“12. Voidable marriages.-(1) Any marriage
solemnised, 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 or by fraud as to the nature of the
ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance
concerning the respondent; or
(d) that the respondent was at the time of the marriage
pregnant by some person other than the petitioner.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(1), no petition for annulling a marriage-
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:11:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 08:36:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31168-DB] (5 of 8) [CMA-1774/2024]
(a) on the ground specified in clause (c) of sub-section
(1) shall be entertained if-
(i) the petition is presented more than one year
after the force had ceased to operate or, as
the case may be, the fraud had been
discovered; or
(ii) the petitioner has, with his or her full consent,
lived with the other party to the marriage as
husband or wife after the force had ceased to
operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had
been discovered;
(b) on the ground specified in clause (d) of sub-section
(1) shall be entertained unless the court is
satisfied-
(i) that the petitioner was at the time of the
marriage ignorant of the facts alleged;
(ii) that proceedings have been instituted in the
case of a marriage solemnised before the
commencement of this Act within one year of
such commencement and in the case of
marriages solemnised after such
commencement within one year from the date
of the marriage; and
(iii) that marital intercourse with the consent of
the petitioner has not taken place since the
discovery by the petitioner of the existence of
the said ground.”
13. A reading of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1955 reflects that
where the consent of the petitioner has been obtained by force or
by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material
fact or circumstance concerning the respondent, it constitutes a
ground for seeking annulment of the marriage.
14. Section 12 (1)(d) of the Act of 1955 deals with the ground
that the respondent at the time of marriage, pregnant by a person
other than the petitioner, which also constitutes a ground for
annulment of the marriage.
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:11:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 08:36:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31168-DB] (6 of 8) [CMA-1774/2024]
15. A reading of the Section 12 (2)(a)(i) of the Act of 1955
reflects that a petition on the ground specified in Section 12(1)(c)
shall not be entertained if it is presented more than one year after
the force has ceased to operate or, as the case may be, after the
fraud has been discovered.
16. Section 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Act of 1955 prescribes the period
of limitation in respect of a petition under Section 12(1)(d) and
provides that in the case of a marriage solemnised after the
commencement of the Act, the petition must be instituted within
one year from the date of the marriage.
17. A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it
clear that, in a broad sense, the ground contemplated under
Section 12(1)(d) may also involve suppression of a material fact,
which could in an appropriate case, constitute fraud within the
meaning of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1955. However, the
distinguishing feature between the two provisions is that Section
12(1)(d) specifically deals with the respondent being pregnant by
a person other than the petitioner at the time of the marriage,
irrespective of whether the consent of the petitioner was obtained
by fraud or not. For such a ground, the statute prescribes
limitation from the date of the marriage itself.
18. So far as the ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of
1955 is concerned, the alleged fraud may relate to any material
fact or circumstance existing either prior to the marriage or at the
time of the marriage. Therefore, the pleadings must specifically
disclose the material fact alleged to have been suppressed, the
date on which such fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner,
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:11:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 08:36:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31168-DB] (7 of 8) [CMA-1774/2024]
and the manner in which such suppression vitiated the consent for
marriage.
19. In the present case, the pleadings are not specific in this
regard. The appellant has not clearly bifurcated the two
independent grounds available under Sections 12(1)(c) and 12(1)
(d) of the Act of 1955. The pleadings merely allege suppression of
pregnancy without specifically pleading the particulars of fraud,
the exact material fact alleged to have been concealed, and the
date on which such fraud was discovered .
20. When fraud is alleged, the pleadings must be specific. In this
regard, Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
assumes significance. The said provision mandates that where a
party relies upon allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, undue
influence or other similar grounds, general averments are
insufficient. The party must specifically plead the necessary
particulars, including the relevant dates, facts, and circumstances
constituting such fraud. In the present case, the pleadings lack
the requisite particulars contemplated under Order VI Rule 4 CPC.
21. So far as the ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of
1955 is concerned, the date of discovery of the alleged fraud may
be taken as 09.04.2022. On that date, according to the appellant’s
own pleadings, the second sonography confirmed his suspicion
and furnished definite material indicating that the respondent had
conceived prior to the marriage. Consequently, the petition ought
to have been presented on or before 09.04.2023. However, the
petition under Section 12 of the Act of 1955 was instituted only on
15.04.2023. Therefore, even on the ground under Section 12(1)
(c), the petition is barred by limitation.
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:11:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 08:36:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31168-DB] (8 of 8) [CMA-1774/2024]
22. So far as the ground under Section 12(1)(d) of the Act of
1955 is concerned, the learned trial Court has rightly held that
limitation commences from the date of the marriage and not from
the date of knowledge of the alleged suppression. Section 12(2)
(b)(ii) expressly provides that the petition must be instituted
within one year from the date of the marriage. Since the marriage
was solemnised on 30.11.2021 and the petition was instituted
only on 15.04.2023, it is ex facie barred by limitation. On this
ground also, no interference with the impugned order is called for.
23. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
24. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
25. Registry is directed to send back the record.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
DANISH USMANI/ 32
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:11:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 08:36:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
