MINI Vs. JAMES KOSHY ALEXANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the Original Petition which is filed for declaration of nullity of the marriage by the wife, it is stated by her that the first respondent who was married by heron 25.8.1985 was a lunatic at the time of marriage. She has impleaded the parents of the first respondent as respondents 2 and 3 in the original petition. All the three respondents remained ex parte.

(2.) THE petitioner has given evidence as P.W.I she has spoken to the fact that ever since the marriage she noticed that the first respondent was taking medicines which will be normally taken by a lunatic. It is specifically stated by her that he was taking eskazine and pasipal which are medicines prescribed for psychiatric conditions. She has also deposed that his behaviour was not that of a normal person and he will be aggressive and violent at times and used to apologise when it subsides. He was not attending to the duty regularly. She took him to P.W.2 who was professor of psychiatric Department in the C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore. He examined first respondent on 16.10.1986. P.W.2 has stated that the first respondent was suffering from Schizophenia a form of mental disease. He has put him on medicine till 28.11.1986. THEreafter the first respondent did not go to P.W.2. THE original case records and copies were produced by P.W.2 in court. Xerox copy is" marked as Ex.A-16. THE witness gave evidence referring to the original records. P.W.2 has spoken to the fact that the drugs referred to by the wife are given for patients suffering from schizophrenia. Suddenly aggression and violent behaviour are the common symptoms on this kind of mental disorder. THE behaviour at times will be abnormal. When a person suffers frum such mental disorder, if he is aggressive and violent, anybody nearby by will have to face the risk.

(3.) A notice was issued on behalf of the petitioner under Ex.A-6, dated 13.12.1986. In the notice the relevant facts are set out, but the notice is returned unserved. Another notice was issued under Ex.A-11 on 6.1.1987 by the same Advocate. That notice was received by all the three respondents but there was no reply.