K JASMINE KIRUBAKANI Vs. K BALASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition coming on for hearing on Friday, the twenty fourth day of February, 1995, upon perusing the petition, the order of the Court below and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Govindarajan, Advocate, for the petitioner and of Mr. A. Shanmughavel, for M/s. M. Balasubramanian and V. Meenakshisundaram, Advocate for the respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following order :- The above revision has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge Tuticorin dated 14-10-1993 in I.A. No. 61 of 1993 in I.D.O.P. No. 22 of 1992 where under the application filed by the respondent/husband, petitioner in the Court below to direct the petitioner herein to a psychologist or a panel of psychologists at Madurai Rajaji Medical College Hospital, Madurai, for assessment of I.Q. (Intelligence Quotient) and the level of intelligence. The said application came to be allowed by the Court below on 14-10-1993.

(2.) The respondent herein filed I.D.O.P. No. 22 of 1992 under Sections 18 and 19(3) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 seeking for a declaration that the pretended marriage solemnised between the petitioner and the respondent on 7-2-1990 at All Saints Church, South Authur, V.O.C. District may be declared as null and void and non est in law. In support of the claim for divorce, the respondent/husband stated that the petitioner has been working as a reporter in 'Dinathanthi' and he has been permanently residing at Madras, that his brother-in-law arranged for the marriage in question and he had to rely only upon his brother-in-law and a marriage broker since otherwise the family of the petitioner/wife were utter strangers. It has been stated that on 10-11-1989 the respondents saw the petitioner for a few minutes and the marriage was solemnised on 7-2-1990 and though the petitioner was aged 24 years, her behaviour was that of a girl of a seven years old. Certain instances have been narrated by the respondent in the petition in the Court below to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is an incurable lunatic at the time of marriage and that the respondent has been cheated by suppressing the said fact. It was also stated that shocked at the behaviour of the petitioner, the respondent took her to Dr. Vijayarangam of Tuticorin and that the said Doctor told the respondent that the mental faculty of the petitioner was affected, retarded and lacked growth. Contending that the marriage has been brought about by material suppression about the mental condition of the petitioner, who is said to be a lunatic of incurable stage at the time of marriage, it is claimed that the marriage is null and void and non est in the eye of law. After exchange of notices, the petition came to be filed on the view that the petitioner was a lunatic and legally unfit and incompetent to enter into a contract of marriage. The petitioner herein disputed and decided the claim of the respondent. Thereupon, the petitioner has taken an application in I.A. No.61 of 1993 to refer the petitioner to a Psychologist or a panel of Psychologists at Madurai Rajaji Medical College Hospital, Madurai for assessment of I.Q. (Intelligence Quotient) and the level of intelligence. The said application was contested by filing a counter affidavit by the order under challenge dated 14-10-1993. The application came to be allowed by the learned District Judge. Hence, the revision.

(3.) The main case of the respondent is that though the respondent filed I.A. No. 37 of 1992 to have the mental condition of the petitioner ascertained and the same was allowed, it was by mistake and oversight stated therein that the petitioner was a lunatic. It has been also stated that the word 'lunatic' has been loosely used instead of specifically using the word 'idiot' claiming that the said fact resulted in the Court in not getting a proper use the application in question came to be filed for the second time claiming that the petitioner is an idiot whose mental capacity has not grown with her age and that the proper intelligence level can be only ascertained by a qualified clinical Psychologist. It has also been stated that the person who examined her in his report stated that he had not made intelligence test to assess her intelligence and, therefore, the present application became necessary to have her level of intelligence ascertained and assessed by a qualified Psychologist. This application was opposed by filing a counter affidavit contending that the object of the petitioner is to get somehow a report of this choice having failed in his attempts to prove the charges and allegations against the petitioner by the respondent about her mental condition. It has also been contended for the respondent that all the necessary tests were carried by the Doctors at the instance of the respondent pursuant to the orders made in I.A. No. 37 of 1992 and the petitioner cannot be compelled to be sent to Madurai for another Medical Examination. The Court below, after con- sidering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side, allowed the application on the ground that to effectively adjudicate and decide the claim made in the main I.D.O.P. the report about the mental condition and calibre of the petitioner is necessary and that, therefore, it would be in the interest of both parties concerned to allow the application and issue the direction as prayed for.