JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, against the decree and judgment made in CMA No.67/2003 passed by the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu dated 25.11.2005 reversing the decree and judgment made in HMOP No.22 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu, dated 28.08.2002 and prays that the same may be set aside, reversed and varied.)

1. The respondent/wife is the appellant in this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal. Aggrieved over the order of the Lower Appellate Court, in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court and granting decree in favour of the petitioner/husband, the appellant/wife preferred the above Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are called as per their rankings in the petition filed for decree of nullity of marriage.

3. The petitioner/husband filed a petition under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a decree of nullity of marriage solemnized between the parties on 31.05.1996. It is relevant to state that the petitioner/husband had averred that the marriage was solemnized between the parties on 31.05.1996 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. The marriage was an arranged marriage and it was consummated. The petitioner/husband had intercourse with the respondent/wife for about ten times and they were done after much persuasion. According to the petitioner/husband, the respondent/wife is very dull and totally passive in her behaviour and expressed her aversion in marital life in begetting children. The petitioner was a Research Scientist and he used to read books for a long time. When he wanted to relax in the night, he sought conjugal company of the respondent, but she was persistently evasive and requested the petitioner not to disturb her at all during her sleep. Therefore, the petitioner suffered silently many times because of the refusal. It gave an impression to him that the respondent got married out of compulsion by her parents. On 23.12.1996, he had taken her to Dr.Mangala Nagarajan, who opined that the respondent was suffering from Schizophrenia and referred her to Dr.Sarada Menon for further consultation. That was the first time the petitioner came to know of the fact that the respondent was suffering from Schizophrenia. Thereafter, in the exchange of letters happened between the petitioner and his father-in-law and mother-in-law, it was disclosed that the problem was subsisting even before the marriage. Since the conjugal company was refused, he was leading a life of saint for seven months. Since the respondent and her parents intentionally suppressed the material facts, he left her at her parents house on 09.05.1997 and took her to Dr.Sarada Menon along with her parents on 10.05.1997 wherein the Doctor has confirmed the ailment mentioned above. On the basis of the above facts, the petitioner filed a petition for decree of nullity of the marriage solemnized between the parties.

4. The respondent/wife denied all the allegations and contended that she did not suffer the disease of Schizophrenia and that she was normal and was working as a Teacher. She further contended that she was treated very badly at the matrimonial house and her mother-in-law demanded more dowry. Her husband is an ill tempered person and used to behave abnormal. When he had corns in his heals, she only took him to the Doctor as a dutiful wife. But for the purpose of getting divorce, he had taken her to the Doctor for getting some medical certificate and also forcibly obtained letters from her and her parents. Since they had no other go, they have given the letters relied on by the petitioner.

5. The Trial Court examined the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked Exs.P1 to P15 on the side of the petitioner. On the side of the respondent, R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Ex.R1 was marked. The Trial Court, relying on the above document filed by the respondent, dismissed the pet