Key Points: - The judgment considers whether the husband proved that the wife was suffering from a mental disorder to an extent unfit for marriage and procreation, affecting validity under Section 12(1)(b) and (c) (!) . - It discusses condonation through cohabitation after discovery of fraud as a factor defeating the petition (!) (!) . - It cites authorities on mental capacity required for marriage and that merely labeling someone as schizophrenic is insufficient; need degree of incapacity at the time of marriage (!) (!) . - It notes the Family Court’s misreading of expert evidence that the disease could be curable and that there was no incurable disease preventing family life (!) . - It emphasizes the need to assess mental state at the time of marriage, not at trial or post, with standards from various authorities (Mulla, N. R. Raghavachariar) (!) . - It states the appellate court allowed the appeal, set aside the Family Court judgment, and remitted/allowed the petition accordingly (final decision) (!) (!) . - It addresses maintainability and proper appointment/guardianship procedures (lunatic representation) relevant to cause title (!) . - It discusses related precedents: Ram Narayan v. Rameshwari, Sujatha v. CD. Hariharan, Mohinder Kaur v. Bikkar Singh, etc., regarding standard of proof and concealment of material fact (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It includes the specific facts: marriage solemnized 30-08-1991; alleged non-consummation; self-immolation attempt; doctor’s testimony; wife’s evidence; contradictions in testimony (!) (!) [21000477690013] (!) .

How to determine if a marriage is voidable under Section 12(1)(b) and (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act based on alleged mental incapacity?

What is the role of condonation/cohabitation after discovery of fraud in defeating a petition under Section 12(1)(b) and (c)?

What standard of proof and evidentiary approach should courts apply to assess mental capacity at the time of marriage and the existence of fraud?