Provisions of sections 5(ii)(cc) and 12(1)(b) are attracted.

This appeal has arisen out of the order dated 27-2-1989 in C.M.A. No. 10 of 1989 on the file of the District Judge, Tirunelveli, reversing the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli dated 4-3-1988 in H.M.O.P. No. 91 of 1987, dissolving the marriage of the appellant with the respondent.

2. The appellant/husband filed H.M.O.P. No. 91 of 1987 under Section 12(1)(b) and (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of the marriage dated 1-6-1984 at Tiruchendur. His case is that the appellant did not know anything about the family of the respondent. During the betrothal and the marriage, the father of the respondent fraudulently concealed the fact that the respondent was subject to recurrent attacks of insanity. The consent of the appellant was obtained by fraud. The reception function as mentioned in the invitation could not be performed on account of the behaviour of the respondent. Her behaviour was strange, odd and uncommon. On 1-6-1984 itself, the appellant was informed that the respondent became suddenly ill. It became worse, worse the next day and the day after. She was not taking food. She was not talking to anybody. It appeared to the appellant that she was suffering from some kind of mental disorder. The parents and relatives of the respondent alone were administering some drug or the other, without consulting a doctor. A witch was brought in. He chanted manthras and smeared white ashes upon the forehead of the respondent to drive out the evil spirit haunting her. On 4-6-1984 when she was taken to the appellant's house, her behaviour became violent. When questioned, the respon-dent's father confessed that he concealed, the treatment of the respondent at Sri Ramakrishna Ashram Hospital, Trivandrum, from 18-5-1984 to 28-5-1984 for recurrent attacks of insanity under Dr. Chandrasekaran. After learning, the appellant sent a notice of dissolution of the marriage. After receipt of her reply, the petition for dissolution was filed.

3. In the counter, the respondent denied that she was suffering from insanity or any other mental disease. The reception was conducted as stated in the affidavit. The betrothal was conducted when the relatives and the wives of the two advocate friends of the appellant were present. The respondent was sad because of her mother's condition due to paralytic attack and also of the fact that she had to leave the family. The treatment at Trivandrum was not for any mental disease, but only for the griefs which she was experiencing due to parting of her parents and the marriage was celebrated with full satisfaction. Hence, there was no substance in the petition for dissolution.

4. The trial Court framed an issue as to whether the respondent was suffering from mental disease and the said fact was concealed and suppressed while getting consent of the appellant for the marriage. The trial Court found that the respondent suppressed the material facts regarding the disease, while she was suffering before the marriage while getting consent. Therefore, the petition was allowed. On appeal, the I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, reversed the finding of the trial Court and found that the marriage was valid. Hence, the appellant was not entitled to the relief claimed under Section 12 (1) (b) and (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

5. Now, the learned senior counsel for the appellant Mr. T. R. Mani, urged before this Court that the respondent was suffering from Schizophrenia and suppressing that fact the consent of the appellant was obtained for the purpose of the marriage. If the appellant had been informed about it, he would not have contracted the marriage at all. The learned counsel stated that from the evidence it is seen that the respondent was given treatment at Sri Ramakrishna Ashram Hospital, Trivandrum from 18-5-1984 to 28-5-1984 and she was given electro convulsive treatment during the said period. Therefore, the learned senior counsel Mr. T. R. Mani submitted that the case