RAJU SKARIYA Vs. SHEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.M. Reference has come before us for confirmation of the decree passed by the Court below under S. 20 of the Indian Divorce Act in O.P. No. 82/95. Petitioner in the original petition, Raju Skariya, is the husband while the first respondent Sheela is the wife. The case of the petitioner is as follows : The petitioner and first respondent were married according to Christian rites on 2-1-1989 at the St. Mary's Yakobaya Church, Erukkumchira. At the time of marriage, the father of the first respondent was not alive. The petitioner contends that the first respondent is a lunatic. According to him, the first respondent was a lunatic even before the marriage and this was wilfully suppressed by the second respondent, mother of the first respondent. If the factum of lunacy of the first respondent had been revealed to him, the petitioner would not have married the first respondent. The petitioner further contends that even after the marriage, the lunacy continued. With the result, he is not in a position to lead a peaceful marital life and he was not permitted to have cohabitation with the first respondent. When the petitioner disclosed this fact to the second respondent-mother, she tried to pacify him by saying that gradually the lunacy will subside and that they can have a good married life. The further case of the petitioner is that after the marriage for most of the days the first respondent was residing in the house of the second respondent and on account of the resistance from the side of the first respondent for cohabitation, he has to sleep in a separate room. The spouses shared the same bed only if some change was noticed in the mental condition of the first respondent. A male child was born to them on 14-2-1990. But even after delivery, the mental condition of the first respondent had not changed. The petitioner further contends that the first respondent is incapable of thinking and taking any decision and she is always in the habit of uttering some nonsense. Hence, the petition was filed for a declaration of nullity of the marriage on the ground of lunacy. The petitioner also speaks of an arrangement with the second respondent by which he wanted to put an end the relationship between the petitioner and first respondent.

(2.) Since the first respondent was alleged to be a lunatic, the first respondent was examined by the Court to find out whether she was capable of understanding things and whether she would be independently able to conduct the case. On being satisfied that the first respondent was incapable of answering the questions and that she was not mentally normal, the second respondent was appointed as a guardian. The second respondent filed a counter. According to the second respondent, the first respondent is now in her care and custody. She further states that the first respondent is a lunatic and an idiot. She admits that the first respondent was given in marriage as alleged by petitioner without disclosing the true state of affairs. According to her, she thought that after the marriage everything would be normal. Thus, we can see that the counter filed by the second respondent was in support of the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner was examined himself as P.W. 1 and the second respondent was examined as R.W. 1. Both P.W. 1 and R.W. 1 speak in terms of the pleadings. Thus they gave oral evidence to the effect that the first respondent is a lunatic and an idiot. On the basis of the oral evidence, the learned District Judge declared the marriage as null and void. This is what is stated in paragraph 15 of the order of the Court below :"