VELAYUDHAN S/O VELLAN Vs. K V USHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the respondents in OP 111/2007 on the files of the Family Court, Kozhikode. The first appellant is the husband of the respondent and the appellants 2 and 3 are the brother and mother of the first appellant. The aforesaid original petition was filed by the respondent herein for a decree granting damages to the respondent. (The parties are referred to as in the original petition). According to the averments in the original petition, the first respondent is a mentally retarded person and he is incapable of leading a normal married life. The respondents have obtained consent of the petitioner for the marriage with the first respondent by suppressing the said fact of mental retardation and disorder. The respondents were aware of the real mental condition of the first respondent. Had the petitioner been aware of the actual mental condition of the first respondent, she would not have given consent for the marriage. Thus, the respondents have played and practised fraud on the petitioner and obtained her consent for marriage by wilfully suppressing the real state of affairs regarding the mental capacity of the first respondent. According to the petitioner, on the date of marriage itself, the first respondent behaved abnormally. He did not behave as a husband and he refused to talk with the petitioner. He refused to enter into the bedroom on the very first night and he was loitering inside the compound of the house till 12 mid night. At about 12 O'clock he was persuaded and compelled by his relatives including respondents 2 and 3 to enter into bed room. Even thereafter he did not attempt to talk to the petitioner. Immediately after entering into the bed room he fell into sleep. He did not came near to her on the next morning also. On the next day the relatives of the petitioner visited the matrimonial home and the petitioner informed her relatives about the abnormal behaviour of the first respondent. The matter was talked with the relatives of the petitioner and the first respondent. Ultimately, the petitioner had to return to her house along with the parents on the night of 15.5.1996. Thus, they fell apart and living separately from 15.5.1996 onwards. When she came to know the actual mental condition of the appellant, she filed a petition before the family court as OP 212/1996 for annulment of the marriage with the first respondent and the above original petition was allowed on 30.6.1998. According to the petitioner, her parents had spent more than Rs 50, 000/- for the marriage with the first respondent. The chances for a remarriage for the petitioner is very remote. Though the actual damage caused to the petitioner due to the fraud played by the respondents cannot be estimated in terms of money, the petitioner claimed Rs 50, 000/- under this head. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs 1, 00, 000/- by way of compensation from the respondents. Though the petitioner and her relatives demanded the said amount, the respondents refused to pay the amount. In the above circumstances, the original petition was filed seeking a decree to realise Rs 1, 00, 000/- as damages from the respondents.

(2.) The respondents filed a counter-statement denying the liability to pay damages to the petitioner. They have denied the alleged mental retardation, mental disorder and incapacity of the first respondent. According to them, the first respondent was leading a normal marriage life with the petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was an arranged marriage and they have obtained the consent of the petitioner after disclosing the entire details of the family and there was no suppression of material facts or misrepresentation in any manner whatsoever as alleged in the petition. The marriage was solemnised with free will and consent of the petitioner and on due enquiry and the satisfaction arose there-from the petitioner granted consent. The second respondent has been living separately along with his family for the last more than 20 years far away from the tharavadu house wherein the first respondent was residing with the petitioner. The marriage was solemnised three months after the engagement and the petitioner has got sufficient time to enquire about them. Since the petitioner has granted consent on her own will and volition after understanding entire things, she is not entitled to get damages from the respondents.

(3.) On the aforesaid pleadings, both parties adduced evidence which consists of oral testimony of PW1 and documents were marked as Exts A1 to A5 from the part of the petitioner and oral evidence of RW1 and RW2 and documents Exts B1 to B4 were marked from the part of the respondents. On appraisal of the aforesaid evidence, the family court allowed the original petition in part by granting a decree to realise an amount of Rs 50, 895/- from the respondents 1 to 3 with 9% interest. The findings whereby the family court allowed the original petition are assailed in this appeal.