V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of his own petition for annulment of marriage and the grant of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the instance of his wife, the husband has come up with the above appeals.

2. We have heard Mr. Y.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (husband) in both the appeals and Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent (wife).

3. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 31-01-2007 according to Hindu customary rites. Within 18 months of the solemnisation of the marriage, the appellant/husband filed a petition in O.P. No. 95 of 2008 seeking annulment of the marriage on the ground that the respondent/wife did not allow him to have conjugal relationship and that when he took her for treatment, she was found to be suffering from Schizoform illness and that the enquiries revealed that the respondent/wife had been taking treatment for schizoid, making her unfit for sexual relationship and that the suppression of the same tantamounted to fraud, making the marriage liable to be annulled under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

4. The respondent/wife resisted the petition for annulment on the ground that the families of the appellant and the respondent were known to each other for more than 50 years; that they were also related on the maternal side of the appellant; that right from the childhood, both families had decided to have them married; that the respondent even stayed in the house of the appellant when she was studying Intermediate; that after the death of the appellants father, the mother and brother of the appellant started looking for an alliance elsewhere, which resulted in some sort of a depression for the respondent; that in that connection, the respondent was taken to Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, for treatment; that some time later, the attitude of the brother and mother of the appellant changed and they came forward to perform the marriage; that the betrothal took place in May, 2006 and the marriage was solemnized on 31-01-2007; that during this interregnum of about 7 to 8 months, the appellant used to talk to the respondent regularly on phone and they also used to attend parties and functions; that after marriage, the appellant was not interested in regular sexual relationship, but was interested only in oral sex; that the behaviour of the appellant again created disturbances in the mind of the respondent and hence her parents took both of them to a Neuro Psychiatrist by name Dr. Seshadri Harihar on 06-12-2007 and 07-12-2007 for consultation; that the appellant and the respondent were subjected to clinical examination by one Dr. Sabiha Sultana and they were also advised to consult a Sexologist; that the appellant refused to have any consultation; that the abnormal behaviour of the appellant resulted in the revival of her Schizoform illness; that Schizoform illness is a curable disease and hence it cannot be a ground for annulment of marriage.

5. Before the Family Court, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1. He examined his elder brother as P.W.2, his paternal uncle as P.W.3 and a Psychiatrist working as Assistant Professor in Kurnool Medical College as P.W.4. The Wedding Card and Wedding photographs were marked on the side of the appellant as Exs.A-1 and A-2. The treatment record of the respondent issued by Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, was filed as Ex.A-3. The Neuro Psychological Report, dated 07-12-2007, of the respondent was filed as Ex.A-4. The Death Certificate of the appellants father was filed as Ex.A-5.

6. On the side of the respondent, she was examined as R.W.1, her father was examined as R.W.2 and a Psychiatrist from Channai by name Dr. S. Nambi was examined as R.W. 3.15 documents were marked on the side of the respondent. Ex.B-1 was a prescription given by Dr. Seshadri Harihar on 01-4-2006. Two referral letters issued by Dr. Seshadri Harihar on 06-12-2007, one addressed