Lunacy at the time of marriage and fraudulent concealment of such lunacy can invalidate a marriage, but the burden of proof lies on the person impugning the validity of the marriage.

( 1 ) THIS is husband's appeal against dismissal of his application for declaration of his marriage with respondent No. 1, the wife, as nullity and for consequential reliefs, preferred in this Court briefly, in the following circumstances :

( 2 ) SHORTLY put, the petitioner's case is that on the negotiations of the appellant's uncle and other relations and the father of the first respondent, marriage between him and the first respondent was solemnised on 4th June, 1964 after performing Hindu rites of "sampradan and Kusandika" at the residence of the first respondent. But after solemnisation of marriage when the first respondent was brought to the residence of the appellant on 5th June, 1964 at about 7. 15 p. m. she was found not to have been behaving like a normal person at night. As according to the custom that was a night technically called "kal Ratri" when the husband and wife could not meet, she had to remain in a separate room. There she insisted on closing all windows and doors and pulling off the ceiling fan although it was extremely hot. She also covered her body with a thick bed-sheet by lying on the bed and indulged in incoherent talks behaving like a lunatic during the whole night. On the next morning, she refused to cleanse her teeth or take her bath and as she talked incoherently "ful-sajja" ceremony could not be performed. On the following day of Baubhat ceremony she indulged in similar behaviour and although she was forced to take bath and persuaded by her parents to wear wedding 'sarees' and ornaments she continued to behave abnormally by talking incoherently and throwing some of her ornaments. At night also at certain times she even asked the appellant to lie flat on his back so that she could pose like Goddess Kali standing on God Shiva.

( 3 ) IT is alleged that on the next morning i. e. on 8th June, 1964, first respondent was taken to her father's residence by her parents but on enquiry the appellant came to know that the first respondent was a lunatic from long before the marriage and she was not cured by treatment.

( 4 ) IT is also alleged that the father, the respondent No. 2. concealed the lunacy of the first respondent at the time of negotiation of marriage and obtained the appellant's consent by such fraudulent concealment and false representation. It is alleged, therefore, that the marriage between the appellant and the first respondent ought to be annulled on the ground that she was a lunatic at the time of marriage and his consent to the marriage was obtained by practising fraud on him.

( 5 ) FURTHER case of the appellant is that he had to spend Rs. 1,000/- in the marriage and the second respondent is liable to make good the loss as on his mis-representation, he agreed to bind himself with the marriage tie with the first respondent.

( 6 ) BOTH the respondents contested the proceeding and in their written statement they denied all material allegations. Apart from the general denial, it was asserted that the appellant gave consent to the marriage after protracted negotiation and proper enquiries about 'physical, mental and social conditions' of the first respondent. It was, however, admitted that on 'boubhat' night the first respondent suffered from temporary nervous break down because of separation from parents and her migration to a new house where the members were unknown to her and further due to stress and strain of the marriage ceremony. That malady, however, was removed when she took some medicine prescribed by a Doctor and fell into deep sleep. It is alleged that she had no ailments from the next morning but in spite of various attempts thereafter the appellant refused to take her back.

( 7 ) UPON these pleadings quite a number of issues were framed and as many as 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant while the respondents examined themselves and one of the witnesses and some documentary evidence were also adduced by both parties. The learned trial Court o