PRINCY Vs. DOMINIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The respondent-husband had filed a suit seeking a declaration of nullity of marriage under Section 19(3) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the appellant-wife on the ground that she was a lunatic at the time of marriage. Both the parties cited witnesses. As far as the respondent-husband is concerned he had called a Doctor (PW2) who claimed to have treated the petitioner before the date of her marriage. In addition, he also called his neighbour (PW4). The Trial Court, however, rejected the application of the respondent-husband holding that the evidence of the Doctor produced by the respondent was not credible. The learned Trial Judge found discrepancies and contradictions in the documentation said to have been maintained by the witness (namely, PW2) in coming to the conclusion that the PW2's evidence that the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia was unacceptable. On the other hand, the Trial Court relied upon the evidence of the wife's witness (RW2) who was a Psychiatrist by profession and who had not only examined the appellant but had also sent for her for further examination by getting a Psychometric test done. The report of the psychometric test was also produced by him. According to the evidence of RW2, there was no history of any lunacy in the appellant. The Trial Court also found that the incidents cited by the respondent-husband relating to the alleged abnormal behaviour of the appellant was not believable as they had not been referred to in the petition filed by him before the Eparchial Tribunal. It was also noted that there was no independent evidence in support of these incidents. The fourth incident which was alleged to have been taken place on 11th June, 1995, related to an allegation of the respondent husband that the appellant had run up to an electric post to mend a fuse. The Trial Court noted that PW4, had been a neighbour of the respondent since childhood. His evidence to the effect that the appellant had climbed up an electric post was found to be controverted by the evidence of the respondent himself who had not made any such statement either in his petition or orally. According to the Trial Court there was on the other hand evidence given by RW5, a doctor, to the effect that there was evidence that the appellant had been assaulted by the respondent quite seriously. The Trial Court found that there was no believable evidence of the alleged lunacy of the appellant and that the evidence produced by appellant that she was sane was more believable. Additionally, the Trial Court noted the demeanour of the appellant throughout the trial, that she behaved normally and that she was able to withstand cross-examination by the respondent and able to defend herself in the witness box and that there was nothing in her behaviour to show that she had any mental complaint. It was held that in the circumstances there was no question of the appellant having played any fraud on the respondent prior to the marriage by suppressing her alleged lunacy.

(3.) The High Court reversed the finding of the Trial Court. Although the High Court noted the evidence of the Civil Surgeon (RW5) who stated that the appellant had been assaulted, he did not discuss it further. As far as the evidence of RW2 the Psychiatrist, was concerned his evidence was also not discussed. The High Court in a very brief judgment accepted the alleged incident of the appellant climbing the electric post and appears to have accepted the evidence of PW4 wholly without noting the criticism of the same by the trial Court. The High Court was also of the view that PW2's evidence was sufficient to prove the fact that the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and was of the view that his evidence had been rejected by the Trial Court only on technical grounds.