AJITHKUAMR Vs. DEEPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and the 1st respondent herein are husband and wife. The appellant filed O.P.842/2006 before the Family Court against the respondent to annul the marriage between them by a decree of nullity under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the consent of the appellant for the marriage was obtained by fraud.

(2.) Parties are referred to as in the original petition. Brief facts of the case can be summarized as follows : The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized as per the hindu customary rites on 22.10.1999. After the marriage, parties lived together in the house of the petitioner. From the very beginning, the respondent's behaviour was abnormal and she was careless and irresponsible in all aspects. Initially he thought that the abnormality may be the result of sudden change in residence. But even after an year, the respondent did not conceive. When the parties consulted with a doctor by name Dr Vinaya Chandran, he examined them and told that both the parties are physically normal; but the doctor expressed a doubt that the respondent might be taking strong medicines for some illness. At that point of time, the respondent herself stated that she was taking medicines for headache and fear. Subsequently, she was examined by Dr O.N.Vasudevan, who advised her to stop the said medicines. Thereafter, the respondent showed symptoms of severe mental illness. She was not interested in sexual intercourse. As per the advice of Dr.O.N.Vasudevan, she stopped the medicines and then she became pregnant. But her mental condition had become more worse. She was found frequently laughing without any reason. While so, the respondent delivered a child and after 90 days the respondent and the child were taken back to his house. She had shown symptoms of mental illness at that time. When the abnormal behaviour of the petitioner became intolerable, the petitioner realized the fact that the prescriptions obtained by him from the house of the respondent are for the treatment of her mental illness even before the marriage. He contacted Dr.O.N.Vasudevan and enquired about the prescription. It was revealed that she was suffering from mental illness even before the marriage and was under his treatment. Thus, the petitioner came to know the fact that his consent to the marriage had been obtained by suppressing her mental illness. Thus, the parents of the respondent had committed cheating on him. If he had the knowledge about the mental illness of the respondent, certainly he would not have married her. So also, the respondent, at the time of marriage, was also not matured enough to give consent. Even after the marriage the respondent has mental illness and was under treatment. He has evidence proving that the respondent is having serious mental illness on 20.12.2005. With the above averments the petitioner prayed for a decree of nullity.

(3.) The respondent filed written-statement denying the allegations of mental illness alleged against her. She emphatically denied the allegation that she was undergoing treatment of Dr O.N.Vasudevan for her mental illness, before the marriage and she told him the said fact. she had never undergone treatment of Dr O.N.Vasudevan at any point of time. The allegation that the parents of the respondent suppressed the mental illness of the respondent is also utter falsehood. On the other hand, she further contended that on 13.4.2002 at night the petitioner came to the house consuming liquor and assaulted her mercilessly demanding more money from the father and on 14.4.2002 her parents took her and the child to their house. The allegation that the petitioner had got some documents regarding her treatment for mental illness from the house of the respondent is also false and baseless. After 14.4.2002 the petitioner never enquired about his family. Nothing has been paid after 14.4.2002 for their maintenance except payment of Rs 450/- and Rs 948/- by money order. Neither the respondent nor her father had committed forgery or any kind of cheating to him. It is also contended that the mala fides of the petitioner is to wriggle out from the marital tie under the guise of fraud alleged against him. The respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition.