JAIGOPAL NAGARAJAN Vs. GOWRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein brought an action for annulment of his marriage with the respondent admittedly solemnized in accordance with the Hindu rites on 24.1.1977. He based his action on the cause that his wife allegedly suffered under the spells of epilepsy at the time of her marriage. Courts of fact however, have held that there has been no conclusive evidence to hold that she had the ailment at the time of her marriage and thus dismissed the suit.

(2.) IT is on record that the respondent had attacks of fits in the year 1969 when she was treated by an eminent neurosurgeon Dr. B. Ramamoorthy who in his prescription (Exhibit B97) while indicating the course of treatment indicated pettimal epilepsy. She was again examined by Dr. Kamamoorthy in the year 1974. The prescription (Exhibit B64) indicated mild disturbance. In his deposition of Dr. B. Ramamoorthy (R.W. 2) said ?from records alone we cannot say whether fits had been controlled?. After the marriage, however, she was again examined by Dr. B. Ramamoorthy in the year 1980 (Exhibit B65). In this there is no indication of any disturbance or epilepsy. In his deposition Dr. B. Ramamoorthy has said: ?No finding of epilepsy is given in the report. My treatment to the respondent consisted of suitable drugs and general tonics. Respondent's fits were controlled, Fits stopped?. R.W. 2's deposition on the subject is however to the effect that after 1969 there was one instance of freezing like statue in 1975 but according to him this could not be called epilepsy proper. There was same attack in the year 1978. Still according to the doctor this also could not be called epilepsy. He has deposed on 11.4.1984 that from 1969 the health of the respondent till the date of his deposition was good and further stated she has been taking medicines and tonics. She has a normal male child. The fits she had in 1969 had been completely controlled. From 1969 till date the respondent has not been subjected to recurrent attacks of epilepsy. I do not agree with petitioner's description of the disease as menstruous malady permanent physical handicap ugly disease peculiar and lapical defect. The court of appeal below has said on the basis of the above expert evidence as well as other evidence on the record: I am unable to conclude that the disease that the respondent had in November and De cember, 1977 was epilepsy. After a careful consideration of the documentary and oral evidence I am also of the view of the trial court that the petitioner has not proved that at the time of marriage the respondent was subjected to recurrent attacks of epilespy.?