NALINI RAJENDRA KOTWAL Vs. RAJENDRA RANPAT KOTWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL Respondent in Family Court Petition A-No, 8 of 1990, decided on 31st August, 1990, has filed this Appeal feeling aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order. Respondent-original Petitioner is the husband who had filed the Petition on the ground under section 12 (1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. He sought annulment of the marriage by decree of nullity on the, ground that the consent for marriage of the Petitioner was obtained from him by fraud at, the time of marriage. It was his contention that the Respondent-wife was suffering from mental disorder or mental sickness since long prior to the marriage and was under treatment of a psychiatrist by name Dr. Watwe and this material fact was suppressed from the Petitioner and his family members thereby seeking his consent to the marriage fraudulently. In the Petition filed before the learned Judge of the Family Court, the Petitioner has narrated that the wedding of the respondent took place on 2nd June, 1989 at Pune. But shortly after the wedding within few days thereafter, the Petitioner and members of his family noticed with shock the peculiar irrational behaviour of the Respondent wife. He has narrated the instances in his Petition that the wife used to go to neighbours who were unknown to him, used to demand tea at their place or she used to demand estables at the strangers places, used to go to unknown places for hours together or even in the bathroom for washing legs and hands or to walk away from the house directionless. The petitioner-husband was therefore, firmly of the view that she is mentally sick person and he did approach the father of the wife and made the inquiry about the mental health of the Respondent, the Respondent's father admitted this fact and also admitted that she was being treated by Dr. Vidyadhar Watwe during the years 1986-87 at Deccan Gymkhana, Pune.

(2.) WITH the assistance of the learned Counsel we have gone through the impugned Judgment, evidence of the parties and documents placed on record.

(3.) IN the written statement, these averments have been denied, and, on the other hand, it is alleged that it is the Petitioner-husband who has illtreated the Respondent to the extent that she was driven out of the house, and, to top it all it is alleged that he had demanded additional amounts by way of gifts after the marriage.