SHAFFIQUE, J

These appeals and RP(FC) arise out of a matrimonial dispute

between C.V. Dinesan and Preetha Pavithran. The couple got married

on 21.1.2008 as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. A child

was born in the wedlock on 26.1.2009. Thereafter, with effect from

24.1.2010 they got separated.

2.

The contention urged by the husband was that the wife

was suffering from mental disorder and he filed a petition,

O.P.No.832/2010 alleging that the mental illness was not brought to

his notice before the marriage. Hence he claimed that the marriage

has to be declared null and void. During the pendency of the original

petition he sought for divorce by amending the petition on the ground

that the wife was mentally retarded.

3.

The respondent denied the allegations. According to her

she is not suffering from any mental illness and she had to leave the

matrimonial home on account of ill-treatment. She also filed

O.P.No.693/2010 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The wife also

filed M.C.No.325/2010 seeking maintenance for herself and minor

child. Common evidence was taken in the case. The husband was

examined as PW1 and his sister was examined as PW2. The wife was

5

examined as RW1 and her father was examined as RW2. Exts. A1 and

A2 were marked on the side of the petitioner and Exts.B1 to B5 were

marked on the side of the respondent. Exts.X1 and X2 were the

documents summoned and marked before court.

4.

Apparently, the question to be considered was whether the

wife was suffering from any mental disorder of any kind on account of

which the husband was incapable to live with her. In order to prove

the mental illness, necessarily, medical evidence has to be adduced.

No such evidence is forthcoming in the case. From the oral testimony

of PW1 and PW2, nothing has been brought out to indicate that the

wife was suffering from mental disorder or rather she was mentally

retarded. In so far as there is no medical evidence in respect of the

metal retardation, it may not be possible for the court to arrive at such

a conclusion. Therefore the Family Court is justified in dismissing

O.P.No.832/2010 which was filed for divorce.

5.

O.P.No.693/2010 was filed by the wife for restitution of

conjugal rights. The same was allowed stating that she is entitled to

live with the husband and he was remaining away from her company

without any valid cause. The husband having the obligation to take

care of his wife and minor child, if fails to do so, necessarily orders can

be passed by the Family Court directing restitution of conjugal rights.

In such circumstances, the Family Court is justified in granting the

6

said relief.

6.

Admittedly the wife is unemployed and had a minor child.

Maintenance was ordered at the rate of Rs.1500/- to the wife and

Rs.750/- to the minor child. The amount awarded itself is meagre.

Taking into consideration the social status of the parties, it would be

appropriate that this Court need not interfere in the said order. We

don't find any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Family

Court.

The Mat. Appeals and R.P.(FC) are dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

A.M.BABU

kp

True copy

P.A. To Judge.

JUDGE