VANDANA JITENDRA KASLIWAL Vs. JITENDRA NIRMALKUMAR KASLIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal, preferred by a wife, whose marriage with the respondent was annulled by the decree passed on 31-03-2004, by the learned Principal Judge, family Court, Aurangabad, in Petition No. 73 of 2003.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the decision may be stated as follows. It is no more disputed that marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 05-01-2003 at Aurangabad. The marriage was performed as per the custom in the Digambar sect of Jainism. The respondent/husband was a graduate and doing service as an accountant. The respondent/husband filed petition for annulment of marriage with averments that as per the custom in the community, the bride wears Parda at the time of marriage. The behaviour of the appellant bride was not normal. However, it was stated that she was sleepless and, therefore, the abnormal behaviour might be a temporary phase.

(3.) It is averred that at the time of Muh dekhi ceremony, the bridegroom is supposed to offer some gifts in the form of gold ornament to the bride and when the respondent/husband offered a gold chain to the appellant, she refused to accept the same and behaved in abnormal way. She even refused to give any response to the advances made by the respondent/husband and unbolted the bed-room and joined the sisters of the respondent/husband, which was even a rude shock to the sisters. They pushed the appellant into the bed room again. On the next day, attempts for consummation of marriage made also went in vain. There was a ceremony called "churma". She was staring at a fixed point keeping Pallu of the Sari loose and it was not as per the custom. Her behaviour showed that some thing was being concealed. After three days, the father and sister of the appellant/wife came to take the appellant away. They were informed about the abnormal behaviour of the appellant/ wife and to have medical advice. On 08-01-2003, which was the fourth day after the marriage, the respondent/husband and the appellant's father and sister had taken the appellant to Dr. Barhale. At that time Dr. Barhale asked the father of the appellant/wife what was new problem and Dr. Barhale also disclosed that already the appellant/wife was his patient since June, 1997 and the medication was continued. From Dr. Barhale, the respondent/ husband and his family came to know that the appellant was suffering from acute schizophrenia which was incurable and categorized as, "ac-exacerbation".