The burden of proof is on the party alleging insanity to prove that the other party was insane at the time of the marriage. The standard of proof required in a case of this type is not as high as that required in a criminal case.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the wife Anima Roy, whose marriage with the respondent Probodb Mohan Roy, a learned Additional District Judge, Alipore, has declared, by his judgment and decree dated February 28, 1966, to be null and void.

( 2 ) THE appellant Anima and the res' pondent Probodh, Hindus both, were married under the Hindu rites on July 3 1960, when Anima was 25 and Probodh 37.

( 3 ) THE Hindu Marriage Act, 25 of 1955, came into force on May 18, 1955.

( 4 ) SECTION 12, Sub-section (1), Clause (b), of the Act makes any marriage, whether solemnized before or after May 18, 1955, voidable, and provides for its annulment, by a decree of nullity, if it contravenes Section 5, Clause (ii), thereof. Section 5, Clause (ii), in turn, provides that a marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus if neither party is an idiot or a lunatic at the time of the marriage.

( 5 ) THE husband respondent raises a matrimonial cause in the Court of the District Judge, Alipore, for annulling, by a decree of nullity, his marriage with the appellant, Sm. Anima Roy, on the ground that she was a lunatic on July 3, 1960, the date of the marriage. The date when he does so is May 29, 1963, a little less than three years after the marriage.

( 6 ) THE appellant wife resists such a cause and denies that she was anything of the kind; a lunatic, on July 3, 1960, or ever.

( 7 ) THE learned Judge in the Court of first instance who has had the advantage of hearing and seeing the appellant Anima, has "not the slightest doubt" that she is of sound mind at the time the cause is heard, that is, on and about February 21, 1966. He rejects too the evidence of Dr. Nagendra Nath De, the petitioning husband's first witness, who examined Anima on December 12 and 19, 1962, and found her to be insane. So he does, because insanity in December 1962 does not prove insanity on July 3, 1960. Yet he finds her to be insane on July 3, 1960, for the following amongst other reasons: one, the evidence of another medical man, Dr. Arun Kumar Roy Chowdhury, the petitioning husband's second witness, who examined her on September 4, 1960, only two months after the marriage, and found her to be a patient of schizophrenia, a kind of lunacy, is deserving of consideration on the point whether or not she was a lunatic on July 3, 1960. Two, the appellant acted in an unusual way on July 3, 1960, at, during and after the marriage ceremony, (i) by not looking at the respondent at the time of Subhadrishti (exchange of auspicious glances between the husband to be and the wife to be), (ii) by having torn off the garlands, not once, not twice, but thrice, at the time of the exchange of garlands (Mala Badal) between the husband to be and the wife to be, (iii) by having withdrawn her hand from the palm of the respondent at the time of the Sampradan (the giving away of the girl) and (iv) by having sat facing the wall of the room, with her legs stretched towards her husband in the Basar Ghar (where the spouses just married are taken ). Three, on July 5, 1960, when the ceremony of Fulsajyya (a bed of flowers) was had, the appellant did not join the respondent, her husband then, in his bed, but spent the night, seated on a Satranji spread over the floor, with a newspaper right in her front, in spite of the respondent having invited her to come to him. Worse, towards the end of the night, she raised a shout, and asked why she did so, she gave no reply. Four, between July 4, 1960, and July 11, 1960, when the appellant was in her matrimonial home, she talked incoherently, wore vacant looks, did not respond to any question, proved herself to be disobedient and went without a veil.

( 8 ) THE learned trial Judge, therefore, voids the marriage of July 3, 1960, between the appellant and the respondent and enters a decree for nullity. Hence the appeal by the wife.

( 9 ) MUCH the most important point for determination in this appeal is whether or not the appellant was a lunatic on o