( 1 ) THIS judgment will decide both the appeals, i. e. , FAO Nos. 77 and 78 of 1991 since these arise out of the common judgment dated 15th March, 1991 passed by Mrs. Manju Goel, Additional District Judge, Delhi in HMA 596/83 under Section 12 (l) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the act ) seeking a decree for annulment of marriage, and HMA 270/84 under Section 13 (l) (ia) (iii) of the Act seeking a divorce.

( 2 ) BOTH the petitions were consolidated and tried together. The evidence was recorded only in HMA No-596/83. HMA 270/84 was comprehensive to FAO 78/91 include the facts of other earlier petition as well, i. e. , HMA 596/83.

( 3 ) THE relevant facts set out in the petitions are that the parties were married on 22. 4. 83 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and the conjugal life of the parties lasted only till 20. 9. 83. The Respondent, Anita Sharma, who was employed as an officer in the State Bank of India, Kota, lived with the Appellant in his house at JP-87, Maurya Enclave, Delhi-34 intermittently. According lo the Appellant, the Respondent s behaviour was such as would demonstrate that she was mentally unsound and was suffering from some mental disorder. In fact, according to him, she was suffering from paranoid Schizophrenia which was kept secret from him and his consent to the marriage was, thus, obtained by playing fraud on him.

( 4 ) THE case set out by the Appellant is that on 23. 4. 83 ter the marriage, on reaching the matrimonial home, the Respondent kept sitting in a corner with a sullen face. The Appellant took the Respondent for a stroll in the evening and during the walk the Respondent started shouting that no one on the earth could stop her from visiting Kota whenever she desired. The Appellant s elder brother, thereafter, was told by her that she enjoyed when other were pained by her tantruns. On the night of 23. 4. 83 Respondent spurned every effort of the Appellant to consummate the marriage and, on the other hand, the Appellant was asked by her whether he was married earlier. The partics went on a honey-moon on 29. 4. 83 to Shimla. According to the Appellant the Respondent suffered from obsessional psychosis and washed her hands several times and insisted that both of them should take full bath after performing marital intercourse. During the slay in Shimla whenever they went out for a walk, the Respondent checked and rechecked the locks on the boxes and door and returned to check after a walk of 10 to 15 yds. The Respondent talked many times incoherently and declared that she was not an ordinary girl and was blessed with super-natural powers and she predicted that the Appellant would die in two years.

( 5 ) ON 8. 5. 83 during the ceremony of launching her in household chores, she started crying loudly when she was asked to clean the floor and she herself prepared a salt-dish and later on quarrelled that she was not asked to prepare a sweet dish. On 9. 5. 83 she was asked to get up at lunch at 1 O clock when she cried that no one should wake her up while she was sleeping. On the following day when the Appellant s mother did not wake her up for lunch she became violent and forcibly took the flour from the Appellant s mother and threw the flour in the refrigerator and locked herself in the bed-room as she was offended for not being offered foods before the Appellant s mother took her meals.

( 6 ) ON 11. 5. 83 the Respondent s father took the Respondent to Kota from Delhi. On the Appellant s objection that why was she going to Kota, the Respondent said that she had to go to Kota once a month without divulging the reason. The Respondent did not come back from Kota for two months till 24. 7. 83. During this period she wrote a very nasty letter.

( 7 ) ON 24. 7. 83 the Appellant along with his elder brother went to Kota to bring the Respondent back. The Appellant reminded the Respondent about the nasty letter she had written to him and thereupon the Respondent sho