MUTHURAJ KOILPILLAI Vs. ESTHER VICTORIA KANNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter comes before us on a reference under Section 20 of the Indian divorce Act. The District Judge of Tirunelveli has declared the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant as null and void and granted a decree of divorce subject to confirmation by this Court.

(2.) THE plaintiff and the defendant were married on 5-6-1958 in St. Michael's church, Polnaickenpatti, Tuticorin. according to Christian rites. There can be no dispute about this. According to the plaintiff, on the very night of the marriage, it was found that the defendant could not have sexaal intercourse with him as she was pushing him aside and finally jumped out of bed. He would say that this was due to insanity and at the time of the marriage he did not know about it. The next day the defendant was removed by her mother to her place for treatment and bringing her back. But the defendant never came back. It appears the defendant was working as a midwife for sometime in the Primary Health Centre, thiruvengampet. But we find that she was discharged from service with effect from 28-6-1958, as she was suffering from manic depressive psychosis. The proceedings of discharge from service were issued by the District Medical Officer, rama-nathapuram. The record does show that after the marriage the defendant left her husband and never returned to him thereafter. The plaint was preceded by a notice issued by or on behalf of the defendant in which it was alleged that the plaintiff had deserted her and that he was liable to pay her maintenance at a certain rate. In the plaint, while setting out the facts which we have mentioned, the plaintiff asserted that in view of her continued suffering from manic depressive psychosis, she was not in a position to perform the duties of marriage and that she was unfit for married life, though she is an educated girl having studied upto School final. He also stated that since the marriage had not been consummated because of the defect, the marriage was null and void. That there was no collusion or connivance was averred.

(3.) THE District Judge in view of Jayaraj v. Seeniammal, took coercive steps to secure the presence of the defendant to give evidence in Court. When she was arrested and brought before Court, she gave evidence. In the light of her evidence and on the other materials available the District Judge found that the defendant was suffering from the disease abovementioned and that she was unfit to discharge her marital obligations to her husband. He, therefore, declared the marriage to be null and void.