Nalini Rajendra Kotwal vs Rajendra Ranpat Kotwal

S.W. Puranik, J.—Original Respondent in Family Court Petition A-No, 8 of 1990, decided on 31st August, 1990, has filed this Appeal feeling aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order. Respondent-original Petitioner is the husband who had filed the Petition on the ground u/s 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. He sought annulment of the marriage by decree of nullity on the, ground that the consent for marriage of the Petitioner was obtained from him by fraud at, the time of marriage. It was his contention that the Respondent-wife was suffering from mental disorder or mental sickness since long prior to the marriage and was under treatment of a psychiatrist by name Dr. Watwe and this material fact was suppressed from the Petitioner and his family members thereby seeking his consent to the marriage fraudulently. In the Petition filed before the learned Judge of the Family Court, the Petitioner has narrated that the wedding of the Respondent took place on 2nd June, 1989 at Pune. But shortly after the wedding within few days thereafter, the Petitioner and members of his family noticed with shock the peculiar irrational behaviour of the Respondent wife. He has narrated the instances in his Petition that the wife used to go to neighbours who were unknown to him, used to demand tea at their place or she used to demand establish at the strangers places, used to go to unknown places for hours together or even in the bathroom for washing legs and hands or to walk away from the house directionless. The Petitioner-husband was therefore, firmly of the view that she is mentally sick person and he did approach the father of the wife and made the inquiry about the mental health of the Respondent, The Respondent''s father admitted this fact and also admitted that she was being treated by Dr. Vidyadhar Watwe during the years 1986-87 at Deccan Gymkhana, Pune.

With the assistance of the learned Counsel we have gone through the impugned Judgment, evidence of the parties and documents placed on record.

In the written statement, these averments have been denied, and, on the other hand, it is alleged that it is the Petitioner-husband who has ill-treated the Respondent to the extent that she was driven out of the house, and, to top it all it is alleged that he had demanded additional amounts by way of gifts after the marriage.

Notices on the lines of the above pleadings were already exchanged between the parties prior to the filing of the Petition.

At the trial, the Petitioner examined himself as witness No. 1, Chandrabhaga Ganpat Kotwal. his mother, as witness No. 2, Mohini Dhoman as witness No 3. Mohini is the maternal aunt of the Petitioner, witness No. 4. Dr. Vidyadhar Watwe, who admittedly treated the Respondent from March 1987 onwards and witness No 5 Balasaheb Ghoman, the maternal uncle of the Petitioner and witness No. 6-Sudan Jagtap, who is the friend of the maternal uncle of the Petitioner.

Each of these witnesses have given vivid account of the peculiar and irrational behaviour of the Respondent in the house of the Petitioner shortly after the marriage. They have also corroborated the version of the Petitioner that on inquiries subsequently made it was revealed that the wife was suffering from this mental ailment since long prior to the wedding, it is also not disputed that this material fact was suppressed from the Petitioner and members of his family until the marriage.

The case of the Petitioner is further strengthened from the evidence of Dr. Watwe, Psychiatrist who treated the wife two years prior to the wedding. He is not cross-examined at all. He has categorically stated that from March 1987 for 2/3 months she was under his observation and prior to the starting of his treatment she had complained of restlessness and irrelevant talks for over six months. He however says that though there was some improvement there was no follow up with him by the patient. He again examined her in November 1989 when the father of the bride brought her to him informing that she was married in June 1989 and that she had received treatment of electro convulsive thereby. He also informed the said Doctor that the Respondent-wife had became obstinate and short tempered and was not knowing her personal hygiene. He has produced the case papers at Exh. 30. This deposition is not at all challenged or cross-examined on behalf of the wife. This evidence alone leads to the conclusion that the wife was suffering from serious mental ailment two years prior to the wedding and that she had undergone intensive treatment. The father had not even taken care to enquire from Dr. Watave whether the girl could enter matrimony. On the other hand he visited the said Doctor with his daughter after her marriage when the father himself admitted that the new bride did not know even her personal hygiene. This fact coupled with the several instances narrated by the Petitioner and his witnesses have not been controverted by cross-examination. We have also perused the evidence of the wife-Respondent Witness No. 1-Nalini and her father witness No. 2 Bhikaji. Their evidence does not inspire any confidence. It appears to be perfunctory and not relevant to the issue before the Court, Suffice it to say the evidence of the Petitioner is overwhelmingly cogent to establish that the wife-Respondent was suffering from serious mental illness since prior to the wedding and that this material was not disclosed to the Petitioner and the members of his family at the time when the Petitioner''s consent was obtained for the marriage. This constitutes a fraud upon the Petitioner as contemplated u/s 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act which entitles him to the declaration of nullity of his marriage.

The learned Judge of the Family Court has dealt with all these aspects in a lucid manner in his Judgment paragraphs 10 to 15 and we are in entire agreement with the said finding.

In the result therefore, the Appeal being without any merit fails and is dismissed.

No order as to costs.