I actually became really curious about whether there could be arguments made on his behalf in the U.S. so I did some research. Of course, I couldn't find any case that matched up completely to the facts of the Chinese couple, but here is what I did find.
In the case Di Lorenzo v. Di Lorenzo, the court held that:
So, if the man would not have consented to the marriage had he known the extent of cosmetic surgery his wife had undergone, then maybe he could argue that this was a misrepresentation on her part.One of those causes is stated to be when "the consent of one of the parties was obtained by force, duress, or fraud;" and the only limitation imposed, where the action is on the ground of fraud, is that it must appear that the parties have not, at any time before the commencement of the action, "voluntarily cohabited as husband and wife, with a full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud." (Code of Civ. Pro. §§ 1743, subdiv. 4, and 1750.) This language is broad and warrants but the one reasonable construction, that the fraud must be material, to that degree that, had it not been practiced, the party deceived would not have consented to the marriage . . . It is a general rule that every misrepresentation of a material fact, made with the intention to induce another to enter into an agreement and without which he would not have done so, justifies the court in vacating the agreement. It is obvious that no one would obligate himself by a contract, if he knew that a material representation, entering into the reason for his consent, was untrue. There is no valid reason for excepting the marriage contract from the general rule.
Of course, Di Lorenzo dealt with a woman pretending to be carrying the child of the husband and he later realized the baby wasn't his, so that's a lot more understandable.
In Williams v. Williams:
Of course, that dealt with sterility of the husband and him knowing but not disclosing that information to his wife prior to their marriage.Marriage being a mutual and voluntary compact, based on mutual regard and affection, to live together as husband and wife as long as both shall live, a confidential relationship exists between those contemplating marriage that demands frankness and truthfulness as to all facts that would affect the decision of either party. Persons who have agreed to marry owe an affirmative duty to inform each other of all facts material to their contemplated marriage, not alone because such facts may affect the decision of the contracting parties, but the state and community has an interest by reason of the property rights involved and the possible issue of the union. And if either party is unfitted by age, physical condition, mental incapacity, or legal disability from being joined in lawful wedlock, that party should not remain silent; there is a clear duty to speak, as such facts are of the very essence of the contract of conjugal union. Silence implies marriageability.'A confidential relationship exists between persons who contract to marry, and, occupying such positions toward each other, concealment of material facts may be fraud. The suppression of the truth, when there is a duty to speak, is a fraud. Smith, Frauds, § 9. There is a legal and moral obligation to communicate or disclose facts material to the contemplated marriage.
The real question is whether hiding one's true physical appearance and undergoing drastic change is something a partner has a duty to tell the other partner. I think it's arguable.
Now, I know there's a big difference between lying to your partner about whether he is the father of your child or being sterile but not telling your wife until after marriage and not telling your husband that you had cosmetic surgery before you got married and had a child, but the court above did say:
It's hard without knowing the facts about the nature of their relationship before the marriage. Maybe he argued that he relied on the fact that she fit his standard of beauty in order to marry her, and she knew that beforehand and went ahead with the misrepresentation. Plus, he probably is wondering what other things she's lying about. There's certainly a breach of trust there.The fraud need not necessarily concern what is commonly called the essentials of the marriage relation -- the rights and duties connected with cohabitation and consortium attached by law to the marital status.
She could probably argue that it wasn't in writing that she had to be whatever it is he considered beautiful naturally before he married her. She could also argue that she never promised him a "beautiful" baby whatever that means. It's also horrific public policy if he could sue because his baby wasn't beautiful enough. I think the only leg he was able to stand on was the fact she did misrepresent herself to him.
If I am totally off-base, please let me know. This was just some quick research I did.