The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of free and voluntary consent for a valid marriage, emphasizing the capacity to understand the nature and consequences of marriage at the time of solemnization.

Varghese Kalliath, J.

This is an appeal in a matrimonial cause. Husband is the appellant. He is a Doctor, having very high educational qualifications in medical science. He is a Lecturer in cardiology in one of the most reputed medical institutions - Sree Chitra Thirunal Institute of Medical Science & Technology. 1st respondent herein is his wife.

2. Appellant filed a petition under S.18 of the Indian Divorce Act to declare the marriage between himself and 1st respondent null and void. According to him, there was only a form of marriage which took place on 10th may, 1979 at the Marthoma Syrian Church, Tatabad, Coimbatore. Both of them belonged to Marthoma Syrian Christian Community. Their marriage was according to the rites of the Marthoma Syrian Church

3. After the marriage, appellant and 1st respondent stayed together at Trivandrum till 10-1-1981. There after in Delhi till 20-6-1983 and again at Trivandrum till 19-9-1983. A male child was born to them on 28-5

1980

4. The case of the appellant before the court below and here is that the-1st respondent/wife was a lunatic at the time of marriage and she continued to be so even after marriage. He elaborates his case by saying that this crucial fact was not disclosed at the time of marriage by the 1st respondent or her father, the 2nd respondent. Appellant narrates incidents and facts to substantiate his case that the wife was behaving in a manner, which would justify his conclusions, that she is a lunatic. Appellant also stated certain circumstances and facts to convince the court that the wife was suffering from very serious mental disease even before her marriage. It is stated that the condition of the wife deteriorated after she has given birth to a child on 28-5-1980 and she required psychiatric consultation. She was treated by Dr. N. Prabhakaran, Superintendent of Mental Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Further his positive case is that the 1st respondent had an earlier attack of mental disorder in 1976 before marriage. According to the appellant, the 1st respondent has been suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, a serious mental disorder and that she has been a lunatic at the time of marriage and thereafter and so the marriage is to be declared null and void under S.18 of the Indian Divorce Act.

5. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed separate statements of objections. The 1st respondent denied the allegations that she is a lunatic. It is revealed in the objection that though their marriage was an arranged one, appellant and the 1st respondent had occasion to exchange views and had occasion to unfold cockles of the heart before marriage. Appellant and 1st respondent lived together for the last time in Delhi. After completing his post-graduation in medicine, appellant returned to Thiruvananthapuram and set up residence in Sasthamangalam. But the 1st respondent was declined residence with him. At the time of delivery, 1st respondent developed some sort of mental disorder and so Dr. Prabhakaran was consulted. On treatment she came to normalcy. What has happened was only a temporary upset of the normal mental condition and there was no recurrence. Thereafter also, appellant and the 1st respondent stayed together in Delhi when residential quarters became available. The 1st respondent is a B.Com degree holder and had distinguished herself in sports and athletics during her college days. For the case of the appellant that the 1st respondent had an episode in 1976, she has an answer. She had an accident in 1976 when she was a student. A motor vehicle knocked down the 1st respondent and she become unconscious for sometime. The said accident upset her and a psychiatrist was consulted. No treatment for insanity was given. In the objection, she also said some instances of cruel frenzied and short-tempered behaviour on the part of the appellant and that she was deceived to part with the custody of the child. Appellant traversed the statements given by the 1st respondent. Of course, the 2