Kerala High Court
Raju Skariya vs Sheela And Anr. on 21 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: AIR1999KER381, II(1999)DMC572, AIR 1999 KERALA 381, 1999 A I H C 3958, (1999) ILR(KER) 3 KER 225, (1999) 2 HINDULR 494, (1999) 2 KER LT 810, (1999) 2 DMC 572, (1999) 2 KER LJ 339, (2000) 1 MARRILJ 156
Author: Ar. Lakshmanan
Bench: Ar. Lakshmanan
JUDGMENT Sankarasubban, J.
1. This C.M. Reference has come before us for confirmation of the decree passed by the Court below under Section 20 of the Indian Divorce Act in O.P. No. 82/95. Petitioner in the original petition, Raju Skariya, is the husband while the first respondent Sheela is the wife. The case of the petitioner is as follows : The petitioner and first respondent were married according to Christian rites on 2-1-1989 at the St. Mary's Yakobaya Church, Erukkumchira. At the time of marriage, the father of the first respondent was not alive. The petitioner contends that the first respondent is a lunatic. According to him, the first respondent was a lunatic even before the marriage and this was wilfully suppressed by the second respondent, mother of the first respondent. If the factum of lunacy of the first respondent had been revealed to him, the petitioner would not have married the first respondent. The petitioner further contends that even after the marriage, the lunacy continued. With the result, he is not in a position to lead a peaceful marital life and he was not permitted to have cohabitation with the first respondent. When the petitioner disclosed this fact to the second respondent-mother, she tried to pacify him by saying that gradually the lunacy will subside and that they can have a good married life. The further case of the petitioner is that after the marriage for most of the days the first respondent was residing in the house of the second respondent and on account of the resistance from the side of the first respondent for cohabitation, he has to sleep in a separate room. The spouses shared the same bed only if some change was noticed in the mental condition of the first respondent. A male child was born to them on 14-2-1990. But even after delivery, the mental condition of the first respondent had not changed. The petitioner further contends that the first respondent is incapable of thinking and taking any decision and she is always in the habit of uttering some nonsense. Hence, the petition was filed for a declaration of nullity of the marriage on the ground of lunacy. The petitioner also speaks of an arrangement with the second respondent by which he wanted to put an end the relationship between the petitioner and first respondent.
2. Since the first respondent was alleged to be a lunatic, the first respondent was examined by the Court to find out whether she was capable of understanding things and whether she would be independently able to conduct the case. On being satisfied that the first respondent was incapable of answering the questions and that she was not mentally normal, the second respondent was appointed as a guardian. The second respondent filed acounter. According to the second respondent, the first respondent is now in her care and custody. She further states that the first respondent is a lunatic and an idiot. She admits that the first respondent was given in marriage as alleged by petitioner without disclosing the true state of affairs. According to her, she thought that after the marriage everything would be normal. Thus, we can see that the counter filed by the second respondent was in support of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner was examined himself as P.W. 1 and the second respondent was examined as R.W. 1. Both P.W. 1 and R.W. 1 speak in terms of the pleadings. Thus they gave oral evidence to the effect that the first respondent is a lunatic and an idiot. On the basis of the oral evidence, the learned District Judge declared the marriage as null and void. This is what is stated in paragraph 15 of the order of the Court below :
"From the deposition of P.W. 1 and R.W. 1 and also on examining the 1st respondent, I am satisfied of the averments contained in the original petition and the truth of each and every averment and also the correctness of the statements contained in the petition filed by the 2nd respondent. This is a case in which admittedly at the time of the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, 1st respondent was a person of unsound mind and an idiot. Even now, such a condition continues. So, the petitioner has succeeded in proving that at the time when he married the 1st respondent, she was a lunatic or idiot and hence the petitioner is entitled to a decree of nullity declaring the marriage as null and void."
Even though notices were served on the parties there was no appearance for them. Hence, we ourselves perused the papers and records. After perusing the records we are of the view that the decree cannot be confirmed.
4. It is admitted that in the wedlock of the petitioner and the first respondent, a child was born to them on 14-2-1990. The marriage was on 2-1-1989. The petitioner's evidence does not show from what kind of mental infirmity the first respondent was suffering. Except saying that the first respondent is a lunatic or idiot, the petitioner does not say whether he took the, first respondent to a Doctor or whether the first respondent was taking any medicine. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner had entered into an arrangement with the second respondent by which he gave Rs. 10,500/- to the second respondent for the maintenance of the child. The evidence of R.W. 1, the mother, also does not throw any further light. No Doctor or other witness has been examined to show the mental condition of the first respondent at the time of marriage.
5. Section 18of the Indian Divorce Act states that any husband or wife may present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court, praying that his or her marriage may be declared null and void. Section 19 of the Divorce Act gives the grounds on the basis of which a decree of nullity can be granted. Section 19(3) of the Act says that a decree of nullity can be granted if either party was a lunatic or idiot at the time of marriage. It can be seen from the evidence adduced and the findings of the Court below that there is no particular evidence to show the state of mind of the first respondent at the time of marriage. Both the petitioner and the second respondent merely say that the first respondent is a "vernacular matter omitted". From this, it cannot be inferred that the first respondent is a lunatic. It is now an accepted proposition that it is not any kind of derangement of the mind that falls under the definition of lunacy. Any state of mind which falls short of lunacy or idiocy cannot be allowed to be a ground for annulment. Persons differ from one another in the degree of intelligence possessed by them. It would be a dire calamity if it could be said as a matter of law that a marriage, entered into by a person who is neither a lunatic nor an idiot, is void simply because one of the parties lacks in intelligence although he is able to understand the nature of the bonds of matrimony into which he is entering See Mt. Titli v. Alfred Robert Jones, AIR 1934 All 273. As per the section, the Court has to be satisfied on the evidence that one of the spouses at the time of marriage was not possessed of sufficient capacity of mind to understand the nature of the contract of marriage or the duties and responsibilities which go with it. It is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Narain v. Rameshwari, AIR 1988 SC 2260 wherein the Supreme Court has stated as follows :
"The context in which the ideas of unsoundness of "mind" and "mental disorder" occur in the section as grounds for dissolution of a marriage, require the assessment of the degree of the "menial disorder." Its degree must be such as that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities arc not recognised as grounds for grant of decree. If the mere existence of any degree of mental abnormality could justify dissolution of a marriage few marriages would indeed survive in law."
6. In the present case, we fear that there is a collusion between the petitioner and the second respondent, P.W. 1 staled thus :
(Vernacular matter omitted) R.W. 1 in her evidence stated thus :
(Vernacular matter omitted) According to us, it is because of the arrangement between the second respondent and the petitioner that the second respondent spoke in terms of the case of the petitioner. The Court below should not have granted a decree on the basis of oral evidence on account of two reasons; one is that a child has been born out of the wedlock and the other is that the Court is declaring that the first respondent is a lunatic. The Court below should not have acted upon the mere ipse dixit of P.W. 1 and R.W. 1. There was no cross-examination either by P.W. 1 or R.W. 1.
7. We are of the view that the interest of the first respondent was not protected by the guardian. We are not satisfied with the evidence in the case that the marriage was a nullity. In the above view of the matter, we refuse to confirm the decree. The decree is set aside. The case is remanded to the Court below. The Court below will appoint a fresh guardian to the first respondent after removing the second respondent from the guardianship. The new guardian may file a fresh objection. The parties will be given opportunities to adduce evidence to prove their cases.
The C.M. Reference is disposed of as above.