JOSEPH AUGUSTHY Vs. MARY ELIZABETH MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of both parties, the main appeal itself is taken up for final hearing. The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.No. 13047 of 1996 on the file of this Court, which was filed under Sec. 18 of the Indian Divorce Act praying for a decree of nullity of marriage between the appellant and the respondent herein as ab initio void. The case of the appellant in brief is that the respondent was married to him concealing the neurological disorder and the mental illness of the respondent and that the marriage was he,by playing fraud. It is the specific case of the appellant that the respondent has been suffering from neurological disorder and has been under treatment for the same even prior to the marriage and this fact was purposefully concealed by the respondent as well as her parents from the knowledge of the appellant and his parents.

(2.) The petition filed by the appellant was resisted by the respondent. When the matter was pending before the learned single Judge, the appellant and his father were examined as PWs. 1 and 2. Though the appellant had suggested the names of two doctors as witnesses, one Dr. Madhusoodanan of Kottayam Medical College and the other Dr. Ananda kumar of Trivandrum Medical College, according to the appellant, they could not be examined since the appellant apprehended that no impartial opinion could be obtained from them. In the circumstances, the appellant moved a petition praying that the respondent be examined by a Board of experts. The respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that she need not be examined by a medical Board as there is no prima facie evidence adduced by the respondent to show that she is suffering from neurological or psychiatric disease.

(3.) The learned single Judge, however, by his order date 6.1.1998 rejected the prayer to examine the respondent by a Medical Board as prayed for by the appellant. The learned Judge while passing the order has however remarked that even though several allegations were made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 in this case do not support those allegations and that considering the allegations made in the Original Petition and the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, there is no need to examine the respondent by a Medical Board as prayed for.