The standard of proof required in cases of insanity under Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is not as strict as in criminal cases, but the court must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by Shri P. K. Chanda, Judge, Third Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta in Matrimonial Suit No. 8 of 1968, refusing the prayer of the husband to annul his marriage with the opposite party respondent by decree of nullity on the grounds stated hereafter.

( 2 ) THE appellant and the respondent are both Hindus by religion. They were married on the 8th March, 1967, at Kiabani a village in the district of Midnapore, according to Hindu rites. Both the parties hailed from the same district. The husband's village is at Tatarpur about 25/30 miles from Kiabani. The respondent and her father live at Chandrakona another village within the district of Midnapur. Kiabani is the village where the uncle of the respondent resides.

( 3 ) IN December, 1967, the husband filed an application under Section 12 (1) (b) read with Section 5 (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, with a prayer for decree of nullity on the ground that the respondent was a lunatic at the time of her marriage and that the said fact was suppressed.

( 4 ) THE husband alleged that the wife was a girl of unsound mind at the time when she was married with him. During the marriage some abnormalities were noticed in the conduct of the wife. The husband and the members of his family were fully convinced after the marriage was over that the respondent was a girl of unsound mind. She was found to behave abnormally. Accordingly, she had to be treated by the doctor while she was in the care and protection of the husband and his father. On treatment it was found that it was a case of Schizophrenia. On enquiry the husband discovered that the wife's insanity was hereditary and that she was lunatic at the time of the marriage.

( 5 ) THE wife entered appearance and disputed all the statements made by her husband and denied all those allegations and contended that she was not demented at the time of her marriage. She, on the other hand, contended that immediately after her marriage with the petitioner she came to know about her husband's love affairs with a girl from before the marriage which temporarily upset her. She also felt that she was not properly treated by her husband which treatment was expected of a newly married husband to a newly married bride; his treatment was always rough; coupled with that she was also ill-treated by her mother-in-law, cumulative effect of all these ill-treatments told upon her health which gradually broke down. It was also asserted that she was made to swallow some unknown herbs on the plea that it would restore her health. Instead of improving her condition it further deteriorated and she was attacked with temporary loss of mental equilibrium with spasm in her left hand. She was admitted in a nursing home and within two months her malady was completely cured but the husband refused to take her back. She was always willing to go and live with the husband as husband and wife but the husband refused to accept her.

( 6 ) THE learned Judge of the Court below considered the respective cases of the parties and came to the finding that the petitioner failed to establish his allegations that the wife was a lunatic at the time of marriage and accordingly he refused the prayer of the husband for declaring his marriage with the respondent a nullity. In the result, the suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said decision the husband has preferred this appeal.

( 7 ) MR. Dutt, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant has challenged the said finding of the lower court on two-fold grounds, namely, that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the standard of proof which is required to be discharged by the husband in a case like this and secondly, the learned Court below has not properly considered the evidence on record which led to a failure of justice due to which the petitioner's prayer for annulment of their marriage as nullity has been refused.