JOSE CHERIAN Vs. ELSAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arranged marriage of the Petitioner with the first Respondent, which is alleged to have solemnised in accordance with the religious rites and ceremonies prevailing in Christian community on 11th Sept. 1997 at St. Mary's Church, Mulakkulam, is sought to be declared null and void by the Petitioner u/s 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short 'the Act') on the ground of playing fraud on him in obtaining his consent to marriage with the Respondent. It is the common case that the parties are Christians governed by the provisions of the Act in the matter of dissolution of marriage, etc. Suppression of material fact alleged by the Petitioner husband for getting broken the matrimonial bond is that the first Respondent wife suffered mental illness right from the year 1993 and that fact was suppressed fraudulently from him by the first Respondent and her near relatives. His consent for marriage was obtained concealing that fact from him. Non-disclosure of the fact of her having intimacy with the co-Respondent before marriage is also projected as a ground for declaring the marriage null and void. Adultery with the co-Respondent during the subsistence of the marriage is also urged as a ground for dissolution of the marriage in case the Court declines to accept the case of the Petitioner rested on fraud played on him in obtaining his consent to the marriage. The alternative relief thus prayed for by him u/s 10 of the Act is to pass a decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage between him and the first Respondent.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed by the first Respondent wife she refuted the accusation of alleged fraud played upon the Petitioner in obtaining the consent of the Petitioner to the marriage, i.e. suppression of the material facts that she suffered mental illness and also her premarital connection with the co-Respondent. In the counter statement she admits the fact of undergoing treatment for depression suffered by her at Sacred Heart Hospital, Paynkulam in the year 1993 and the case put forth by her in resisting the relief prayed for either u/s 19 or u/s 10 of the Act is that she was very much affectionate towards her father and grandmother and she suffered mental depression on account of the sudden demise of her father and grandmother and underwent treatment for the depression suffered. Her case is that undergoing treatment for the mental depression suffered by her on account of the sudden demise of her father and grandmother cannot be treated as insanity. Her case is also that after undergoing treatment for two weeks, she was "absolutely alright" and "continuing her avocation in life". The further case set up by her to resist the claim to declare the marriage null and void is that the fact that she suffered mental depression and underwent treatment for the mental depression was disclosed to the Petitioner before marriage and there was no fraudulent suppression of any material fact from the Petitioner. She denied the allegation of having premarital connection with the co-Respondent. She also denied the grave charge of committing adultery by her with the co-Respondent after she left the matrimonial home on 28th Nov. 1997. Her definite stand taken in resisting the claim is that the marriage was consummated and thus controverted the allegations in the petition that whenever the husband made attempts to consummate the marriage, she became violent and upset. She also denied the abnormal behaviour alleged to be noticed by the Petitioner after the marriage, while she was residing along with the Petitioner in the matrimonial home and put forth a case that she was abused and harassed by the Petitioner without any rhyme or reason.

(3.) So, the point that is to be considered by me for determining the question whether any ground is made out for declaring the marriage of the Petitioner with the first Respondent null and void is whether fraud was played on the Petitioner in obtaining his consent to the marriage as alleged by him. The other question that is to be considered is whether the first Respondent wife is guilty of adultery after her parting company with the Petitioner on 28th Nov. 1997.