Common Judgment: (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.)

1. These two appeals are filed against a common order dt. 07.07.2011 passed by the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur in DOP Nos. 66 & 98 of 2009.

2. The relevant facts are as under:

The appellant is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 12.09.1995 at Brodipet, Guntur, according to the Christian customs and rites. The respondent filed DOP No.66 of 2009 under Sec.10(1)(vii)(ix) and 19(3) of Divorce Act (for short ‘the Act’) for declaring his marriage with the appellant as null and void. He pleaded that the parents of the appellant concealed the fact that the appellant is a lunatic and when he came to know about the same after the marriage, she was taken to a Dr.Phani Bhushan, Psychiatrist at Guntur (PW-4), and that after conducting relevant medical tests, it was opined that the appellant suffers from psychosis. He stated that every effort was made by him to save the marriage, such as getting treatment for the appellant, or by setting up a separate residence, though his financial condition did not permit the same, proved to be futile. He stated that though they lived together for sometime, their marriage itself deserved to be declared as null and void.

3. The appellant filed a counter opposing the O.P. She denied the allegations made in the O.P. According to her, she studied up to Degree and she completed typewriting courses in English, Hindi and Telugu. She pleaded that her conduct was never abnormal, much less she is a lunatic or an idiot. She alleged that the O.P., was filed by the respondent against the wishes, even of his mother and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. The appellant, on the other hand, filed O.P.No.98 of 2009 for restitution of conjugal rights.

5. The trial Court clubbed both the O.Ps., and recorded common evidence. Through the order under appeal, the trial Court allowed O.P.No.66 of 2009 and dismissed O.P.No.98 of 2009. Hence these two appeals by the appellant.

6. Sri B. Devanand, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court decreed the O.P.66 of 2009 and granted decree without there being any evidence. He contends that toplead a ground, referable to Sec.10 of the Act, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent to prove beyond any doubt that the appellant was a lunatic or an idiot, as on the date of marriage, and the evidence of PW-3, the doctor appointed by the trial Court clearly demonstrate that the appellant was not possessing those characteristics at all. Learned counsel further submits that the evidence of PW-4 cannot be taken into account, since he was not appointed by any Court and his deposition is contrary to the professional ethics. He further submits that assuming that the respondent was able to prove the characteristics pleaded by him, he can be said to have waived his right to seek remedy under Sec.10 of the Act, once he has lived with the appellant for quite a considerable time after noticing the alleged infirmity. Another contention is that if the appellant is in fact a lunatic or idiot, the form of O.P., filed by the respondent is defective.

7. Sri Srinivas Rao Ravulapati, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the evidence on record clearly discloses that the conduct and behaviour of the appellant was extraordinary and the same is sufficient to prove that she was suffering from lunacy. He submits that the respondent has no evil mind or hatred towards the appellant, but the O.P., was filed only when it clearly emerged that the appellant had extraordinary behaviour, rendering the family life impossible. He submits that the order passed by the trial Court does not warrant interference.

8. The only ground pleaded by the respondent against the appellant is that she is of extraordinary behaviour and conduct, leading to an inference that she is a lunatic or an idiot. The appellant, on the other hand, pleaded that she is a normal person and she has obtained