THOMAS TITUS Vs. ROJA TITUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal in a matrimonial cause. Husband is the appellant. He is a Doctor, having very high educational qualifications in medical science. He is a Lecturer in cardiology in one of the most reputed medical institutions - Sree Chitra Thirunal Institute of Medical Science & technology. 1st respondent herein is his wife.

(2.) APPELLANT filed a petition under S. 18 of the Indian divorce Act to declare the marriage between himself and 1st respondent null and void. According to him, there was only a form of marriage which took place on 10th may, 1979 at the Marthoma Syrian Church , tatabad, Coimbatore. Both of them belonged to Marthoma Syrian Christian Community. Their marriage was according to the rites of the Marthoma Syrian Church

(3.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 have filed separate statements of objections. The 1st respondent denied the allegations that she is a lunatic. It is revealed in the objection that though their marriage was an arranged one, appellant and the 1st respondent had occasion to exchange views and had occasion to unfold cockles of the heart before marriage. Appellant and 1st respondent lived together for the last time in Delhi . After completing his post-graduation in medicine, appellant returned to thiruvananthapuram and set up residence in Sasthamangalam. But the 1st respondent was declined residence with him. At the time of delivery, 1st respondent developed some sort of mental disorder and so Dr. Prabhakaran was consulted. On treatment she came to normalcy. What has happened was only a temporary upset of the normal mental condition and there was no recurrence. Thereafter also, appellant and the 1st respondent stayed together in Delhi when residential quarters became available. The 1st respondent is a B. Com degree holder and had distinguished herself in sports and athletics during her college days. For the case of the appellant that the 1st respondent had an episode in 1976, she has an answer. She had an accident in 1976 when she was a student. A motor vehicle knocked down the 1st respondent and she become unconscious for sometime. The said accident upset her and a psychiatrist was consulted. No treatment for insanity was given. In the objection, she also said some instances of cruel frenzied and short-tempered behaviour on the part of the appellant and that she was deceived to part with the custody of the child. Appellant traversed the statements given by the 1st respondent. Of course, the 2nd respondent also supported the contentions of the 1st respondent. They were also traversed by the appellant by filing replication.