GOVINDAN EMBRANTHIRI Vs. SUJATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner husband in O.P. No. 12/2007 on the file of the Family Court, Kalpetta is the appellant herein. The original petition was filed by the husband for annulment of marriage under Sec. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the 'Act').

(2.) It is alleged in the petition that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 21st April, 2006 at Vatakara as per custom. It was a second marriage for the respondent and first marriage to the petitioner. Earlier the respondent was married to another person and that marriage did not last for long and that was dissolved through Court by mutual consent later. It is thereafter on the basis of the advertisement made on the side of the respondent in the daily, the petitioner accepted the proposal and marriage was conducted. According to the petitioner, even before the marriage there was an agreement between them that the respondent being the only daughter of a widowed mother, petitioner has to stay in the respondent's house and that was agreed by the petitioner. Though the marriage fixation ceremony was conducted in Sept. 2005, the respondents wanted the marriage to be conducted during April, 2006 and the petitioner was also agreeable for the same. He was under the impression that, the mother of the respondent wanted some time for arrangement of the marriage. After marriage, the respondent lived at the petitioner's house in Wayanad for 15 days. On the very next day of the marriage, the petitioner found that the respondent was behaving strangely and she was not able to look after her own affairs including washing of cloth, cooking of food etc., she was not able to follow the petitioner's words. He had to repeat the same more than one or two times. He was under the impression that the same can be set right in due course of time. After 15 days of their stay, they came to the house of the respondent and started residing there. At that time, he came to know that she was consuming some tablets and she was drowsy throughout the day, she used to sleep in the day time. She was struggled to control sleep. There were abnormal behaviors in the attitude of the respondent. When he enquired about the same with the mother, it was revealed that she was consuming medicine for her mental disorder and she was sleeping and drowsy on account of the consumption of medicine. This shocked the petitioner and he came to understand that the marriage was conducted suppressing this fact of mental illness and she was under the treatment of Doctor Valsala Mannali, M.D., D.P.M., for psychiatric problems from 2001. He also came to understand that she was treated at PVS Hospital on previous occasion by Doctor Meenu Pothen, a Psychiatrist and she had advised that respondent is not capable of being married owing to her mental disorder of acute nature. She was under strong medication from Sept., 2005 to April, 2006 before marriage. The mother of the respondent had shown the entire treatment records which revealed that she was under continuous treatment for psychiatric problems. The strange behavior of the respondent was also unbearable. She used to suspect the petitioner's misconduct whenever he speaks to her own mother or her neighbours and she was resisting him from doing the same. She used to forget all her assignments and even important matter. On one occasion she had even failed to hand over the letter sent from his house and she handed over the same after a month of receipt of the same, when enquired she told that she had forgotten it. The respondent was in the habit of forgetting everything and suspecting everybody of having immoral character. She was not even allowing the petitioner to mingle with her own mother, his sister or sister-in-law. She had even told that after he started residing there, her mother had started dressing well to lure him. All these things were not expected from a woman of her standard. So it is difficult for him to live with her. Since the consent was obtained by fraud, suppressing the material fact, the marriage is liable to be annulled. She had even made bad remarks about the petitioner's sister-in-law and due to her irresponsible comments, she was even being unliked by her own family members. So he took her to her house and left there on 23rd Sept., 2006. The petitioner is convinced that it is difficult for him to continue the relationship, since the consent was obtained suppressing the material fact, the marriage is liable to be declared invalid and the same is liable to be annulled by the decree of nullity, hence this petition.

(3.) The respondent was represented by her mother in the petition and a counter statement was filed through her. She denied the allegations. She had also contended that, the petition is not maintainable and there is no necessity to appoint a next friend or guardian for the respondent as she is capable of looking after her affairs and she is not suffering from any mental illness as alleged. She had denied all the allegations of mental illness, suppression of material fact and committing fraud and obtaining consent by perpetuating fraud etc., She had also denied the allegation that though the marriage fixing ceremony was conducted during Sept., 2005, they wanted to conduct the marriage in April. She denied the allegation that the respondent was suffering mental illness even prior to the marriage. She had also contended that the family members of the petitioner had consulted and discussed and only thereafter the marriage was fixed. There was no suppression of any material fact. The allegation that she was not able to understand things and she was drowsy throughout the day and she was consuming medicine for her mental illness and this fact was disclosed by her to the petitioner etc., are not correct and have denied. She had admitted that there was an earlier marriage for the respondent and that was dissolved through Court within a month of the marriage as they were not liking each other and they felt that the marriage could not be continued, so they dissolved the marriage by mutual consent through Court. These facts were disclosed to the petitioner. The father of the respondent died in her young age and she was looked after by the mother and though she was having required qualification, since she did not get employment, that caused some unpleasantness in her for which she was consulted a doctor, except that there was no mental illness for her. This fact was also disclosed to the petitioner and he was aware of the same and only thereafter the marriage was conducted. They lived together for six months as husband and wife at their house as well as in the house of the respondent and during Sept. 2006 for Onam, they came to their house and thereafter left the respondent there and he left the house and thereafter he did not enquire about her and filed the petition for divorce. The respondent is always interested in the company of the petitioner, she is capable of performing the marital duties as a dutiful wife. So the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief and they prayed for dismissal of the application.