MAHENDRA MANILAL NANAVATI versus SUSHILA MAHENDRA NANAVATI

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 267 · Decided: 18-03-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAGHUBAR DAYAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

7 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
267 
MAHENDRA MANILAL NANAVATI 
v. 
SUSHILA MAHENDRA NANAVATI 
{RAGHUBAR DAYAL, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J. R. 
MUDHOLKAR, JJ.] 
Hindu Law-Annulment of marriage on ground that res-
pondent was at the time of marriage pregnant by some person 
other than petitioner-Satisfaction of court under s. 23-Nature 
of onus on husband in matrimonial cases-Whether court can 
act upon admissions of parties in proceedings under Hindu 
Marriage Act-Quantum of burden and its incidence-Difference 
-Value of medical opinion-Duration of pregra;ocy-Period of 
gestation-Substantial question of law-Co..'tcurrent finding of 
fact--.Power of Court to remand a case-Inherent powers of 
court-Exercise 
of-Evidence Act, ss. 112, 114-Code of Civil 
Procedure, s. 107. Order 41, !'1'. 20, 23, 2:;....constitution of India, 
Art. 133(1)-Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, ss. 12 and 23. 
The appellant is a resident of Bombay while the father of 
respondent was a resident of Prantij in the former State of 
Baroda. They were betrothed in 1945 and their marriage was· 
solemnised at Bombay according to Hindu rites on March 
10, 1947. On August 27, 1947, respondent gave birth to a 
daughter after 5 months and 17 days of their marriage. 
In April 1956. the appellant filed a petition for annulment 
of his marriage with respondent on the ground that the child 
had been conceived long prior to his marriage through someone 
else, the respondent was, at the time of marriage, pregnant by 
some one other than himself, that that fact was concealed from 
him and that ever since he had learnt about the birth of the 
<!hild he had not cohabited with the respondent nor had he any 
relation with her whatsoever. The defence of respondent was 
that she conceived the baby as a result of sex relations with 
the appellant after their betrothel on being assured by him that 
that was permissible in their community, and that the parents 
of the appellant knew about the relations between the parties 
and also about her having conceived prior to her marriage. The 
trial court accepted the allegations of the appellant and held 
that the respondent was not pregnant by the appellant but by a 
person other t!'an the appellant even before marriage. Res-
pondent went m appeal to. the High Court against the order 
of ann1:11ment passed by the trial court. The High Court was 
not satisfied w•th. the findings of the trial court and remanded 
!he case to the tnal court after framing the following two new 
issues:-
1. I~ it proved ~hat the .respondent was pregnant at th." 
time of marnage? 
2. Is it prove~ .that marital intercourse with the consent 
of the petitioner h3;8. not taken place since the dis-
covery by the petitioner of the 
existence of the 
grounds for a. decree? 
· 
Respondent further alleged th t th 
h'ld 
conception after the marri e a 
e !! 1 
was the result of 
tionaI evidence and came t':f the ~cltn~ cothurt recorded addi-
usion 
at the respondent 
19~4 
March 18 
268 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS· 
[19641 
1964 
was not pregnant at the time of marriage and that no sexual 
-
. intercourse with the consent of appellant took place after the 
M~ndra 
Ml Ma,..lal discovery by appellant of the 
grounds for a decree. These 
"': ' 
findings were submitted to the High Court which held that it 
s .. Aila Makendra was not proved that respondent was pregnant at the time of 
Nanamti 
marriage and that it was proved that petitioner had marital 
intercourse with the respondent subsequent to his discovery 
of the existence of the grounds for the decree. The High Court 
allowed the appeal of respondent and dismissed the petition for 
annulment of marriage. Appellant came to this Court after 
obtaining a certificate of fitness from the High Court. Accept-
ing the appeal, 
Held (Mudholkar, J. dissenting). (i) The child born to res-
pondent on August '2:/, 1947 was practically a mature child and 
weighed 4 lbs. in weight and therefore it could not have been 
the resu:lt of conception taking place on or after March 10, 1947. 
The child was conceived prior to March 10, 1947 and therefore 
respondent was pregnant at the time of marriage ty some one 
other than appellant. Hence, appellant was entitled to annul-
ment of his marriage. 
(ii) Th€ appellant did not have marital intercourse with 
respondent after he discovered that she had been pregnant by 
some one else at the time of marriage. 
1
'
In divorce cases, the court usually does not decide merely 
l' 
on the basis of th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.