( 1 ) THIS appeal, at the instance of the petitioner-husband, arises out of a petition filed under S. 12 (1) (b ). Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for annulment of the marriage. The averments in support of the petition may be briefly stated: The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 14-12-1980 and they both lived together as husband and wife for 23 days. The respondent during that period had recurrent attacks of epilepsy. When the respondent had epilepsy attack on 8-12-1980 the petitioner took the respondent to Dr. G. Nagabhushanam, who opined that she was having epilepsy and gave prescription. After enquiry the petitioner came to know that the respondent had attack of epilepsy about 2 years prior to the marriage after seeing her mother in Gandhi Hospital and again she had another attack when she failed in her B. A. examination. When the respondent had the attack on 8-12-1980 the father of the respondent came and took the respondent to his house. On 14-12-1980 the father of the respondent came and when he was asked by the elders he admitted that the respondent was having epilepsy. Because of the incurable disease which the respondent is having and because of the fraud played by the parents of the respondent the petitioner filed the petition for annulment of the marriage. The respondent in her counter stated that at the instance of the mother of the petitioner, the husband was always teasing the respondent for not bringing good dowry and jewellery from the parents. She never had attack of epilepsy at any time. The marriage was consummated and the petitioner and respondent were having normal relations. With a view to harass her the petitioner and the mother began to impose several restrictions on the respondent and therefore the respondent was spending sleepless nights and became weak. When the petitioner and the respondent went to Skandagiri temple. , she felt giddy and it is false to state that the respondent was having recurrent attacks of epilepsy. The respondent passed her B. A. degree examination and is working as a teacher in Gabriel Childrens School.

( 2 ) ON the pleadings set out the point that arose for determination is whether the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is liable to be annulled for the reasons stated by the petitioner. The court below found that the alleging of recurrence of epilepsy is not proved satisfactorily and even if the respondent had epileptic fit once or twice, or more than the said number, she is physically and mentally fit for leading marital life. The learned Judge also observed that the petitioner should have got the respondent treated properly and when he finds that the respondent is found in fit for the marital life, he would have come to the court with clean hands for annulment of the marriage.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that it is established beyond doubt that the wife had recurrence of epilepsy and further it is sufficient for the purpose of applicability of S. 12 (1) (b) of the Act if there is an attack of epilepsy and need not necessarily be recurrent. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the wife did not suffer from epilepsy much less recurrence of the same. It is further contended that in the absence of proof of recurrence of epilepsy at the time of marriage and if it is curable epilepsy the requirements under S. 12 (1) (b)for annulment of the marriage are not satisfied. P. W. 1 the husband, P. W. 2, Dr. Nagabhushanam and P. W. 3 the neighbour were examined on behalf of the petitioner. The respondent and Dr. T. Nilkant Raj Yadav were examined on behalf of the respondent. The gist of the evidence of P. W. 1 the husband of the petitioner is that the during the period of 23 days after the marriage the respondent had epileptic fits 3 or 4 times and the marriage was not consummated and the first fit was after 4 or 5 days after she came to the house. Dr. Nagabhusanama treated her. On 8-12-1980 at