The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence presented must support the allegations made in a petition for nullity of marriage under the Indian Divorce Act.

1. M.F.A.No. 774 of 1987 is an appeal filed by the husband petitioner against the judgment in O.P. (Div.) No. 13 of 1984 dismissing his Petition for a declaration that the marriage is a nullity and void under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The O.P. was filed on 10-11-1984 and was dismissed on 6-7-1987. The main grounds on which the relief is sought are that the wife, Valsamma Kuruvilla, was impotent before the marriage that she was impotent at the time of the marriage which took place on 17-5-1982, and subsequently she continued to be impotent. She refused to have sexual relations with her husband and she showed avowed aversion to sexual life. It is also claimed that she was a lunatic before the marriage, at the time of the marriage and she continued to be so.

2. The O.P. was resisted by the counter petitioner wife. She denied all the allegations and claimed that the marriage was arranged at the instance of the parents of the husband, who had known her for some years and that the petitioner and herself talked to each other for half an hour and then only consented to marry each other. Subsequently the marriage was celebrated. They lived happily as husband and wife having sexual life as and when anyone of them or either of them desired it. She claims that on the very first night of marriage, the marriage was consummated and that they had sex and that they continued to have sexual life whenever they were together. They went on a pleasure trip visiting various places along with one Kumar, a friend of the petitioner, and his wife, and that they lived a happy married life. During the period from 6-8-1983 to 25-9-1983 they had immense conjugal bliss and during that time she became pregnant and subsequently she delivered a female child prematurely on 17-4-1984. The child died after living for two months and eight days.

3. Considering the elaborate manner in which the Petition and counter are drafted, it would be unnecessary to reproduce the pleadings in elaborate detail in this appeal judgment. The gist of the pleadings given above is sufficient for appreciating the controversies involved in the dispute between the parties.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned District Judge framed the following points for determination:

" 1. Whether counter-petitioner was impotent on the date of marriage and continued to be so on the date of the filing of this Petition?

2. Whether the counter-petitioner was a lunatic on the date of the marriage?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed in the Petition?"

After an elaborate consideration of the evidence the court came to the conclusion that the evidence adduced proved that the counter petitioner was not impotent as alleged by the petitioner and that she was not impotent at the time of the marriage or subsequently or at the time of filing the O.P. The court also came to the conclusion that there was no iota of evidence in this case to prove that the counter-petitioner was a lunatic at the time of her marriage and that she continued to be so. She is a normal girl. She never had any signs of lunacy or idiocy. In view of the findings recorded on points 1 and 2 the learned District Judge dismissed the Petition, filed by the husband, under S.18 of the Indian Divorce Act. Aggrieved by the same M.F.A.No. 774 of 1987 was filed by the husband.

5. M.F.A.No. 752 of 1987 is an appeal filed by the wife against the order in 1-A.No.1987, a Petition filed for alimony pendente lite, pending O.P.No.13 of 1984. The court dismissed the Petition with the remark that the petitioner is not entitled to get any alimony. In the course of the order it was stated that she has got an income of Rs. 879/- per month and she has no dependents, while the husband has to maintain his aged parents. The learned District Judge did not go into the ingredients of S.36 of the Indian Divorce Act, under which the Petition was filed. It is the claim of the appellant-petitioner (wife) that while she is getting a