In Prem Ranjeet Kumar Suraj v. Munni Kumari @ Moni, F.A. No. 64 of 2021, decided on 27 October 2026, the Jharkhand High Court restated a rule that decides more matrimonial cases than any doctrine: pleading is not a substitute for proof, and facts pleaded but not proved are of no consequence. A husband who alleged that his wife's unsoundness of mind was concealed from him at the time of marriage lost his nullity case in the Family Court and has now lost the appeal — because the record contained no medical evidence at all, and because his own pleadings undercut the very incapacity he alleged.
A three-week marriage, a decade of litigation
The parties married in November 2016 and lived together in Bokaro for barely three weeks before the wife returned to her parents\' home. Within a month the husband filed his suit, alleging that the wife suffered from a concealed unsoundness of mind — described variously as a neurological problem, epilepsy or paralysis — which he said prevented consummation and vitiated her consent. He also pleaded a second, very different story: that the wife had told him she never consented to the marriage because she loved another man and had married under family pressure. The wife denied everything and set up her own case of cruelty, which produced a Section 498A prosecution. The Family Court, Bokaro dismissed the husband\'s suit in 2021; the Division Bench has now affirmed.
The single point for determination
The Bench framed one question: had the husband proved that the wife lacked capacity to consent, suffered from mental illness, or was unfit for marriage and procreation within the meaning of Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act? The grounds in Section 12 that engage mental capacity all route back to that provision, and the burden lay squarely on the petitioner-husband.
Pleading is not proof
The heart of the judgment is its restatement of an elementary but routinely forgotten principle: the law is settled that pleading is not a substitute for proof, and facts pleaded, if not proved, are of no consequence. Matrimonial petitions are often drafted with maximal allegations on the theory that something will stick. This judgment illustrates the cost of that approach. Not only did the unproved allegations fail; the alternative allegation actively destroyed the primary ground, because the two could not coexist. A spouse who consciously refuses consent is not a spouse incapable of giving it.
The husband\'s fallback — that the marriage remained unconsummated for a decade — could not rescue the appeal either. Non-consummation is relevant to specific statutory grounds with their own requirements; it is not freestanding proof of mental incapacity, and a new case of divorce cannot be set up for the first time in an appeal against the refusal of nullity.
Building a real Section 12 case
For practitioners, the decision maps what a sustainable annulment case on mental-health grounds looks like. It begins with medical evidence: treatment records predating or proximate to the marriage, the testimony of treating doctors, and where appropriate a court-directed examination. It requires precision about the statutory ground — incapacity to consent, a mental disorder making the person unfit for marriage and procreation, or recurrent insanity — because each has different elements. Where concealment-based fraud under Section 12(1)(c) is alleged, the petitioner must additionally prove the suppression of a material fact and must sue within the statutory period after discovery. And it demands internal consistency: a petition that pleads incapacity in one paragraph and a capable but unwilling spouse in the next invites exactly the finding recorded here.
The same standards govern nullity petitions before the Family Courts in Delhi, where allegations of concealed illness are among the most common — and most commonly unproved — grounds pressed in the first years of a broken marriage.
Frequently Asked Questions
What ground was the husband pressing?
Annulment of a voidable marriage under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act read with the mental-capacity condition in Section 5(ii) — his case being that the wife suffered from a pre-existing unsoundness of mind or neurological condition that was concealed, rendering her incapable of valid consent and the marriage unconsummated.
Why did the appeal fail?
For want of proof. Counsel conceded there was no documentary evidence of any mental illness; the medical papers on record did not indicate one; and the wife's testimony survived three days of cross-examination. The Division Bench held that pleadings alone cannot establish a Section 5(ii) incapacity, however detailed.
How did the husband's own pleading hurt him?
He had pleaded that the wife told him she never consented because she loved someone else and married under family pressure. The Bench observed that this allegation, if true, presupposes a person capable of forming and expressing a choice — which displaces the case of mental incapacity. Inconsistent alternative stories in a nullity petition can therefore be self-defeating.
What is the practical standard for annulment on mental-health grounds?
Courts require cogent, usually medical, evidence of a disorder of the kind and degree described in Section 5(ii) existing at the time of marriage, and proof of concealment where fraud is alleged. Vague descriptions of behaviour, or the mere fact that the marriage failed quickly, do not meet the standard; a nullity case should be built on records, treating doctors and specific incidents.