The burden of proof lies on the appellant to establish lunacy or idiocy, and impotency must be proven before a Court of Law. Refusal to undergo medical examination can lead to adverse inferences, and uncorroborated testimony of the petitioner can be sufficient if believed.

1. Appellant filed O. P. 98 of 1984 seeking divorce under the Indian Divorce Act. The application is to declare the marriage a nullity on the ground that the respondent was impotent at the time of marriage and institution of the petition and that he was an idiot or lunatic at the time of marriage. The learned District Judge dismissed the petition holding that the appellant is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the O.P.

2. The marriage was on 26-12-1977. The allegation is that from the date of marriage the respondent is found behaving in a strange and unusual manner. It is also alleged in the petition that the respondent is impotent and the marriage was never consummated.

3. Respondent filed objection refuting the allegation of lunacy and idiocy. Allegation of impotency is also denied. Respondent contended that the very fact that he has high educational qualifications would disprove the allegation of lunacy or idiocy to the hilt.

4. The burden of proof to show that the respondent was at the time of marriage a lunatic or idiot is on the appellant. As the burden is on her she has to adduce convincing evidence to hold that the respondent was mentally deranged at the time of marriage. P. W.1 a psychiatrist attached to the Mental Hospital, Trivandrum was examined to prove that the respondent was treated for mental illness in that hospital during June-July 1978. P. W.1 stated that there are no records at the mental hospital to prove the treatment of the respondent or whether he was treated as an inpatient or out-patient. P. W. 2 who runs a private hospital at Quilon deposed that in 1979 the respondent was treated for some mental disease in his hospital as an inpatient. Ext. X-1 shows that the respondent was treated as an inpatient in P. W. 2's hospital from 1-1-1979 to 6-1-1979. P. W. 2 had no occasion to treat the respondent. He admitted that he has no direct knowledge either about the treatment given to the respondent or about the disease. Rightly, the District Judge did not place any reliance on P. W. 2's testimony. P. W. 3 deposed that he had occasion to treat the respondent in his nursing home for schizophrenia. According to him, the respondent was admitted in his nursing home for treatment on 14-11-1982 and was discharged on 4-12-1982. P. W. 4 stated that in 1979 he had occasion to treat the respondent for schizophrenia and the treatment lasted for about one month. P. W. 5 doctor testified that he treated the respondent in 1978 for some mental dis-order. He was unable to say the exact diagnosis made by him. On perusing Ext. A-1 he expressed his inability to say whether the patient was suffering from any serious mental dis-order or not. Appellant was examined as P. W. 6 and she has given evidence in support of the allegations in the petition. She stated that even during the first night she found the respondent behaving in an unusual manner and during the time when they were living together he was found mentally deranged on several occasions.

5. We have to consider whether the evidence is sufficient to hold that the respondent was a lunatic or idiot at the time of marriage. There is hardly any evidence to show that the respondent is an idiot. It is in evidence that he has high educational qualifications. That by itself is sufficient to reject the allegation that the respondent was an idiot at the time of marriage.

6. The next question to be considered is whether the appellant has established her case that the respondent was a lunatic at the time of marriage. Evidence is there that the respondent was treated for mental disorder after his marriage with the petitioner. But there is no evidence of any such treatment for any such illness prior to the marriage. Counsel for the appellant submitted that it would be well nigh impossible for the appellant to prove the illness of the respondent prior to the marriage as it was not known to the appellant and other members of her family. That is no excuse to get over the legal hu