A.P. DANIEL Vs. SARALA DANIEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an original petition filed in this court by the appellant herein under Sec. 18 of the Indian Divorce Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying that his marriage with the respondent may be declared null and void under Sec. 19(3) of the Act on the ground that the respondent was a lunatic at the time of the marriage. It was also averred in the petition that the petitioner's consent for the marriage had been fraudulently obtained and on the basis of the said averment also a declaration of the nullity of the marriage was pressed for at the stage of argument. The learned single Judge, before whom the original petition came up for hearing, afforded full opportunity to both sides to adduce all their evidence and after a detailed consideration of the evidence produced in the case dismissed the petition holding that there was no reliable evidence to show that the respondent was in any way mentally unsound at the time of the marriage and that the petitioner had also failed to establish his plea that his consent to the marriage had been obtained by fraud. The petitioner has filed this appeal challenging the correctness of the aforesaid findings entered by the learned single judge.

(2.) The appellant-Daniel and the respondent Sarala are Indian Christians belonging to the Brethren sect. They were married on 24th Aug., 1972 according to the rites of the Brethren Church at the Brethren Assembly (West) Hall, Angamali. It is admitted that from the date of marriage (24-8-1972) up till the 9th March, 1974 Daniel and Sarala lived as husband and wife in the house of Daniel in Angamali and in some other places. On the 9th March, 1974 Daniel took Sarala back to her home at North Parur and left her there. Thereafter Daniel did not take her back to his house and the couple has not lived together. The case put forward by the husband is that he came to know at the end of Dec., 1973 from Sarala that she had been a patient at the Mental Health Centre at Kakkanad prior to her marriage though he was not informed about the exact nature of the illness for which she had undergone treatment there. It is further alleged in the petition that without the knowledge of Daniel Sarala had attended the aforesaid Mental Hospital for treatment on four occasions between 30-9-1972 and 14-6-1973. The petitioner goes on to state that without the knowledge of the petitioner in Aug., 1973 Sarala's parents took her to Calicut for observation and treatment by the Superintendent of the Mental Hospital there, that the said treatment lasted from 20th Aug. till 28th Aug., 1973 and that subsequently the petitioner along with Sarala's father had taken her to Trivandrum for treatment by the Superintendent of the Mental Hospital in that place. According to the petitioner, in spite of all possible medical care having been given Sarala's condition continued to deteriorate and she became violent and as a consequence the petitioner was forced to take her to her father's house at Vadakkekara at North Parur on the 9th of March, 1974. It is stated that the petitioner has learnt that thereafter Sarala continued to attend the Kusumagiri Mental Health Centre at Kakkanad for treatment on two days in April, 1974 as well as w ~ two occasions on June, 1974 and that subsequently she had undergone further treatment in the Mental Hospital attached to the Christian Medical College Vellore. It is on the basis of these averments that the petitioner has put forward the plea that at the time of solemnisation of the ceremony of marriage on 24th Aug., 1972 Sarala was a lunatic and was, by reason of her lunacy, legally incompetent and incapable of contracting marriage.

(3.) Under Sec. 19(3) of the Act a decree declaring a marriage to be null and void may be made on the ground that either party was a lunatic or idiot at the time of the marriage. The condition or state of mind of the concerned spouse at the time of the marriage is what is material for the purpose of Sec. 19(3). If insanity supervenes subsequent to the marriage that will not constitute a ground for annulment of the marriage under the aforesaid provision. Similarly, the mere fact that the spouse concerned had suffered from an occasional derangement of mind prior to marriage will not constitute a ground for annulment of the marriage if the mental state at the time of marriage was such as to endow the person concerned with the requistic capacity to understand the nature of the contract of marriage and the duties and responsibilities entailed by it. It is not also every form of insanity of abnormality of mind obtaining at the time of marriage that would invalidate the marriage. The mental derangement must be such as to adversely affect the capacity of the concerned spouse to enter into the contract of marriage. In cases where the marriage is sought to be annulled under sub-section (3) of Sec. 19 of the Act the burden of establishing that the spouse concerned was a lunatic or idiot at the time of the marriage lies heavily on the petitioner. In Mouji Lal Vs. Chandrabati Kumari, ILR 38 Calcutta 700 (PC) Sir Arthur Wilson delivering the judgment of the Board observed as follows :