JAYARADHA Vs. A N MAHALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the wife against the order of the family Court in M. C. O. P. No. 482 of 1992 filed by the respondent, for declaration that the marriage solemnised between them on 31. 1. 1992 at g. S. Kalyana Mandapam, 94, IV Street , Abhiramapuram, Madras is a nullity.

(2.) THE material averments in the petition filed under sec. 12 (1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act are as follows: THE respondent married the appellant on 31. 1. 1992 according to Hindu rites. Before marriage, the respondent saw the appellant on 13. 10. 1991 at Raja Annamalaipuram, in a house which belonged to a relative of the appellant. It is averred in the petition that on that day, when some questions were put to the appellant by the respondent, she was not answering promptly. Since there was delayed reaction on the part of the appellant, the appellant's father prompted her in replying the queries. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner assented to the proposal least suspecting that there was anything wrong in the appellant's mental capacity.

(3.) IN the counter, she has stated that in the original petition, there is suppression of material facts. She also says she is a B. A. (Economics) Graduate of the Madras University; that her mental condition is quite normal, and she is in a position to lookafter herself. She has further contended that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on any of the dates mentioned in the original petition. The material dates that are averred in the original petition are, 13. 10. 1991, 24. 11. 1991, 30. 1. 1992 and 31. 1. 1992. The appellant has contented that there was no misrepresentation on any of these dates, and that the marriage was solemnised after obtaining the full and free consent of the respondent, and that there was no deception or fraud. IN paragraph 5 of the counter, it is stated that nothing transpired on 13. 10. 1991 as alleged in the petition. It is further contended in the counter that on the next day i. e. . on 14. 10. 1991 on the request of the respondent, the appellant, her father and other relatives visited the respondent's brother-in-law's house, and in that house, there was a private conversation between the appellant and the respondent for more than half an hour. It was the house of the brother-in- 1aw of the respondent Dr. Viswanatha rao, who is employed as a Bio-Chemist in Vijaya Medicals. On 14. 10. 1991 both the appellant and the respondent had a free and frank talk and conversation, and at that time, the respondent was informed about her treatment in JIPMER hospital at Pondicherry as an in-patient and out-patient. The respondent was very much satisfied about the disclosure, especially because the appellant was cured on that date. It is further averred that the appellant told the respondent about her entire medical history, and the respondent was fully satisfied and appreciated the frank disclosure. It was only thereafter the respondent's consent was obtained for the marriage.