JUDGMENT P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. This is a petition under S.18 of the Indian Divorce Act 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by the husband for a declaration of nullity of marriage between himself and the respondent on grounds 1 and 3 of S.19 of the Act, namely that the respondent was impotent at the time of marriage and at the time of the institution of the proceedings and that she was a lunatic or idiot at the time of marriage. It is also alleged that since the respondent is a lunatic or idiot she is incapable of giving consent the condition of the respondent was not disclosed to the petitioner by the respondent's parents and the petitioner's consent was obtained by fraud practised on him. Thus according to the petitioner the marriage was without consent of the parties thereto. 2. The petitioner belongs to the Marthomite Christian community, while the respondent is a Jacobite Christian. The petitioner's house is at Niranam, thirteen kilometers away from Thiruvalla, where the respondent has her parental home. The marriage between them was solemnised on 29-8-1974 at the St. Thomas Mar Thoma Church at Niranam. The proposal for marriage was brought to the petitioner's parents who were made to believe that the respondent belongs to a respectable family and is a proper match for the petitioner, who at that time was working at Quilon managing a fishing boat belonging to his brother inlaw, examined in this case as P.W. 5. After exchange of visits between the members of the families the proposal was settled. The respondent was seen at her house by the petitioner and his parents. They took her to be normal. It is on that faith the marriage took place on 29-8-1974. The petitioner noticed that the respondent had to be prompted by her sister spelling out her name to sign the marriage register. It was later realised that the respondent was mentally retarded and is a "lunatic or idiot" within the meaning of the Indian Divorce Act. She was aged 18 years at the time of marriage and was studying in the 8th standard. The petitioner at the first instance thought that it was due to shyness and the changed pattern of family circumstances that the respondent was behaving in an abnormal manner. She was aged 18 years at the time of marriage and was studying in the 8th standard. The petitioner at the first instance thought that it was due to shyness and the changed pattern of family circumstances that the respondent was behaving in an abnormal manner. However as time passed it became clear to him that the respondent was deficient in her mental and intellectual equipment and required constant supervision. She was found incapable of normal married life. The petitioner further alleges that the respondent was impotent at the time of marriage and continued to be so even at the time of institution of this petition. The petitioner was so depressed in mind that he left his home in March, 1976 for UAE where he got a job. Thereafter he had visited his house in June 1977, December 1979, July 1981 and August 1981. The petitioner was not aware of the remedy available under the Indian Divorce Act, until a few days before the filing of an earlier O.P. No. 3594 of 1982 in May, 1982. That petition was withdrawn for some technical defect with liberty to file a fresh petition and this original petition was filed on 22-9-1982 for the relief of declaration of nullity of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on the aforesaid grounds. The petitioner had filed C.M.P. No. 20522 of 1982 for the appointment of a guardian for the respondent. 3. Both the main petition and the petition for appointment of guardian were opposed by the respondent. She filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the original petition. According to her, she did not and does not suffer from any mental ailment either before or after marriage, she is neither a lunatic nor an idiot nor is she impotent as alleged. She had normal marital relationship with the petitioner since their marriage and they were leading a normal married life. The allegation of fraud is denied. The marriage was settled after negotiations between the parents of the respective parties. The petitioner as well as his parents had occasion to see and talk to the respondent before the marriage was settled. The petitioner had no complaints against the respondent until he left India in March 1976, and even thereafter he had been sending letter and presents to the respondent. The petitioner is not maintainable. It is also barred by limitation. The petitioner as well as his parents had occasion to see and talk to the respondent before the marriage was settled. The petitioner had no complaints against the respondent until he left India in March 1976, and even thereafter he had been sending letter and presents to the respondent. The petitioner is not maintainable. It is also barred by limitation. On the above pleadings, the following points arise for determination. (1) Whether the respondent was a lunatic or idiot at the time of her marriage with the petitioner; (2) Whether the respondent was incapable of giving consent for marriage understanding its object and purpose; and (3) Whether she had in fact given such consent for the marriage; (4) Whether the respondent is capable of normal sexual relationship with the petitioner; (5) Whether the respondent is impotent; (6) Whether the petitioner's marriage with the respondent is liable to be declared null and void for the reason that his consent for the marriage was obtained by fraud; (7) Whether the petition is maintainable; (8) Whether the petition as barred by limitation; and (9) Reliefs and costs. 4. On behalf of the petitioner PWs 1 to 7 were examined. On his petition C.M.P. No. 20072 of 1983 this Court by order dated 20-10-1983 directed the Principal Medical College, Trivandrum to have the respondent examined by an expert or experts and to send a report to this Court as to whether she is a congenital idiot or a lunatic and whether she is of such a mental condition that she is incapable of discharging normal marital obligations. The requisition further directed that the respondent will be examined also to see if she is congenially impotent and continues to be so. The report received from the Principal, Medical College, on examination of the respondent by a team of experts, is marked in these proceedings as Ext. XI The respondent was examined as R.W. 1 and Exts. B1 to B13 were marked for the respondent. The application for the appointment of a guardian for the respondent was opposed contending that she is perfectly normal in her mental condition and there is no need for the appointment of a guardian for her. 5. The original petition was posted for trial as suggested by Counsel on both sides. The respondent was examined after the witnesses on behalf of the petitioner were examined. 5. The original petition was posted for trial as suggested by Counsel on both sides. The respondent was examined after the witnesses on behalf of the petitioner were examined. On examination of the respondent it was felt necessary to have a guardian appointed for her as she was found not capable of looking after her interests and defend the proceedings against her. The respondent's mother had filed C.M.P. No. 1071 of 1984 to appoint her as the guardian of the respondent in case the court finds that the respondent is not capable of looking after her interests. Even though notice of the application for his appointment as guardian was served on the respondent's father, he did not enter appearance before this Court. The respondent's mother in her petition had stated that her husband is sick and laid up and is not able to act as guardian of the respondent. After hearing parties by order dated 11-1-1984 the respondent's mother was appointed as guardian of the respondent, in these proceedings. The guardian filed her objections to the original petition on 25-1-1984 reiterating the same contentions as were raised by the respondent earlier. The same Counsel who was appearing for the respondent continued to appear for her even after the appointment of guardian. The witnesses examined had been extensively cross examined. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of reference under Art.217 of the Constitution of India, (1984 SCWR 1) this Court by order dated 15-2-1984 gave the respondent represented by the guardian a further opportunity to adduce evidence and to cross examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner. The guardian filed a statement on 6-3-1984 stating that she wants to further cross examine PWs 1, 2 and 7. This prayer was allowed and the case was posted for further cross examination of these witnesses on 28-3-1984. The witnesses were further cross examined by the Counsel for respondent, and the salary certificate of the petitioner was marked as Ext. A1. The guardian was examined as R.W. 2 on 29-3-1984. A certified copy of the judgment in O.P. No. 3594 of 1982 was produced on 2-4-1984 and was marked as Ext. A2 on 4-4-1984 by consent of parties. 6. Points 1 and 2. Points 1 and 2 can be considered together. A1. The guardian was examined as R.W. 2 on 29-3-1984. A certified copy of the judgment in O.P. No. 3594 of 1982 was produced on 2-4-1984 and was marked as Ext. A2 on 4-4-1984 by consent of parties. 6. Points 1 and 2. Points 1 and 2 can be considered together. S.19(3) of the Indian Divorce Act provides for granting a decree of nullity of marriage on the ground that either party was a "lunatic or idiot" at the time of marriage. The expression "lunatic or idiot" is not defined in the Act. But S.3(5) of the Indian Lunacy Act 1912 defines a lunatic as meaning "an idiot or person of unsound mind". Under this definition an idiot is also a lunatic and is of unsound mind. This definition is adopted for the purpose of S.19 of the Indian Divorce Act in the decision of this Court in Daniel v. Sarala reported in ILR 1976 (2) Ker. 357. After considering the decisions in AIR 1969 Calc. 304, AIR 1963 Punj. 449 and AIR 1972 Calc. 345, this Court stated thus at page 317. "16. What has been discussed here gives only the guidelines to determine in any given case whether one of the spouses had the capacity to give the requisite consent The ultimate decision must be reached by courts in every case on the appreciation of the facts and circumstances appearing in the case. It would not be possible to lay down any hard and fast rule. If the court is satisfied on the evidence on record that one of the spouses was not, at the time of marriage, possessed of sufficient capacity of mind to understand the nature of the contract of marriage and the duties and the responsibilities it gave rise to between the parties as husband and wife, then, of course, the marriage may be annulled on the ground that one of the spouses was not be sound mind. May be that he or she was subject to intermittent or recurring fits of insanity. There are varying degrees of mental infirmity. Generally lunacy affects the process of reasoning and thought and upsets the equilibrium of rational thinking. This may be to a slight degree in some cases, exhibiting certain attitude of mental aberration. May be that he or she was subject to intermittent or recurring fits of insanity. There are varying degrees of mental infirmity. Generally lunacy affects the process of reasoning and thought and upsets the equilibrium of rational thinking. This may be to a slight degree in some cases, exhibiting certain attitude of mental aberration. It may, in some cases, affect the thought process to such an extent that the patient does not know the consequences of what he or she is doing. There is a wide range in between. The conduct of the parties just before and after the marriage, at the time of marriage, the nature and severity of the illness and other allied circumstances will have to be properly weighed and assessed by a court to reach its decision on the question whether the person was of such degree of unsound mind as could justify the finding that he or she had not really consented to the marriage understanding the significance of the relationship that was being entered into. 7. The following passage from Mt. Titli v. Alfred Robert Jones (AIR 1934 All. 273 at 278) is quoted at page 371 to show that a state of mind which falls short of lunacy or idiocy will not be accepted as a ground for annulment of marriage. "A marriage is no doubt described as a civil contract, but it is far from being in the nature of an ordinary contract. A contract which is induced by fraud or force coercion or misrepresentation, is voidable at the instance of the party whose consent has been obtained by such influence and is not void in itself: see S.19, Contract Act. In the case of marriage it is either void or good. It would be impossible to talk of a marriage as Voidable' at the option of one of the parties while should be binding on the other party. The observation to be found in the well known case of Moss v. Moss are very pertinent on the point. Persons differ from one another in the degree of intelligence possessed by them. It would be impossible to talk of a marriage as Voidable' at the option of one of the parties while should be binding on the other party. The observation to be found in the well known case of Moss v. Moss are very pertinent on the point. Persons differ from one another in the degree of intelligence possessed by them. It would be a dire calamity if it could be said as a matter of law that a marriage, entered into by a person who is neither a lunatic nor an idiot, is void, simply because one of the parties lacks in intelligence, although he is able to understand the nature of bonds of matrimony into which he is entering. As observed by Hannan P. In Durham v. Durham, the contract of marriage is a very simple one, which does not require a high degree of intelligence to comprehend." The question therefore is as to whether the respondent was a "lunatic or idiot" on the date of marriage and whether she was capable of giving consent for the marriage understanding its objects and implications. 8. In compliance to the requisition issued by this Court as per order dated 20-10-1983 in C.M.P. No. 20072 of 1983 the Principal of the Medical College, Trivandrum constituted a medical board consisting of Dr. Subhadra Nair, Director and Professor of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, S.A.T. Hospital, Trivandrum, Dr. N. Prabhakaran, Director and Professor of Psychiatry & Superintendent, Mental Hospital, Trivandrum and (3) Dr. Rajasekharan Nair, Professor of Neurology, Medical College, Trivandrum. The Medical Board examined the respondent and submitted a report marked as Ext. XI by consent. The report is as follows: "Smt. Usha K. Mamman, referred to in the above was identified before the board constituted by the Principal, Medical College, Trivandrum on 2-11-1983 at 3 P.M. The Board found that she was mentally subnormal. She was not able to add single digits correctly always. She could not subtract single digits, but she was able to recall from memory correctly the date of her marriage and other details of personal importance. She was capable of managing her household affairs so far as routine work is concerned. She was not capable to handling money properly but capable of cooking and serving food. It was also seen that she has had discharged her marital obligations regarding sex. She was capable of managing her household affairs so far as routine work is concerned. She was not capable to handling money properly but capable of cooking and serving food. It was also seen that she has had discharged her marital obligations regarding sex. Physical Gynaecological examination showed no anatomical abnormality and there was positive evidence that the marriage had been consummated. Except for a mild limping on the left side, she has no physical abnormality. For assessment of intelligence and mental state, she was asked to report to the mental hospital on 3-11-1983. She was seen by the clinical Psychologist on 3-11-1983, 5-11-83, 7-11-83 and 8-11-83. Psychological testing showed that her attention could be aroused and sustained for a considerable period of time. Her memory was below average, memory quotient being 56. Her intelligence was below average, intelligence quotient being 68. She did not show evidence of psychotic features. She was seen again on 15-11-1983 by the Medical Board and the above findings were confirmed. The board is of opinion that she is not a congenital idiot and that she does not suffer from lunacy. Her intelligence is below average, the intelligence quotient is 68. She is not congenitally impotent and there is no gynaecological anatomical defect." The clinical findings contained in the report Ext. X1 are not challenged by Counsel on both sides, even though objections have been filed to the opinion expressed by the Medical Board. For the purpose of explaining the significance of the clinical findings that the memory quotient and the intelligence quotient of the respondent are 56 and 68 respectively, the petitioner has examined Dr. Philip John, a qualified Psychiatrist who has an M.D. Degree in Psychological medicine from the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Bangalore. The evidence of P.W. 7 shows that a person with memory quotient 56 and IQ. 68 is mentally retarded. His mental and intellectual development will be of children of the age group between 8 and 11 years. According to P.W. 7 the grades of classification of mental retardation are based on the measure of capacity for self help with the I.Q. as the indicator. I.Q. 68 indicates mild mental retardation in the classification scheme. For a person of mild mental retardation self help is possible in routine matters. The problem of such people is of adaptation i.e., capacity to react intelligently to unforeseen circumstances. I.Q. 68 indicates mild mental retardation in the classification scheme. For a person of mild mental retardation self help is possible in routine matters. The problem of such people is of adaptation i.e., capacity to react intelligently to unforeseen circumstances. For matters outside the routine, and unforeseen the individual requires guidance and constant supervision. According to PW. 7 with the tests purely of I.Q. one cannot answer definitely of emotional response. The ability to respond to sexual stimulation depends on the ability for abstraction. Abstraction means the ability to generalise from a specific event, such as a nudge from a female producing sexual stimulation in a male. According to P.W. 7 there will be impairment for abstraction in the mentally retarded and from a person with I.Q. 68 normal adult emotional response in sexual relationship cannot be expected. If a man is compelled to take a woman of I.Q. 68 as his wife, it may lead to frustration, depression and anxiety which are the emotional disturbances to the person concerned. In answer to a direct question whether it is possible for ordinary people to find out the mental and intellectual deficiency of a person suffering from mild mental retardation P.W. 7 gave the answer that it is difficult for ordinary people to find out the condition of such persons because they belong to an 'educable' group which means they can be guided towards social conformity in routine day-today affairs. According to P.W. 7, the I.Q. of a person of profound mental retardation is 0 to 24, of severe mental retardation is 25 to 39 of moderate mental retardation is 39 to 54 and of mild mental retardation is 55 to 69. The next higher is border line mental retardation of I.Q. 70 to 84. P.W. 7 has deposed that the earlier method of classification called the "Termans Classification" based on the ability of self help is no longer in use. In that classification the categorisation is as idiot, imbecile, moron and feebleminded. A person of I.Q. 68 according to P.W. 7 will be able to carry on routine day-today affairs such as getting up in the morning, preparing a cup of coffee or preparing food for the members of the family, depending on the training given to the individual. In that classification the categorisation is as idiot, imbecile, moron and feebleminded. A person of I.Q. 68 according to P.W. 7 will be able to carry on routine day-today affairs such as getting up in the morning, preparing a cup of coffee or preparing food for the members of the family, depending on the training given to the individual. However, in respect of "out of routine matters" such as circumstances obtaining on the visit of strangers in the house etc., such persons require guidance and supervision. Whether a patient is capable of managing the household affairs so far as the routine work is concerned, is a matter that can be gathered from the history of the patient; there are no standard tests to see if the person can do routine work such as cooking and serving food or managing household affairs. In answer to a question in cross examination P.W. 7 stated at page 12 "All mental subnormalities are referable to the developmental stages of the brain. We include all such cases under idiocy. It is upto about six years in age that brain development takes place. Idiocy of varying degrees are all congenital except in cases of meningitis etc., as I mentioned earlier in the chief examination. I agree with you that a person of I.Q. 68 can develop social and communication skills which only means language; minimal disturbance of sensory motor areas which only means a mild deficiency of hearing or a mild weakness of the limbs or so, often undistinguishable from the normal until later stage". 9. James C. Coleman of the University of California in his Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life, 5th Edition, states at page 505: "Mental retardation occurs among children throughout the world; in its most severe forms it is a source of great hardship to parents as well as an economic and social burden on the community. The incidence of mental retardation in the United States is estimated to be about 6.5 million persons, or roughly 3 percent of the population. This figure is based on a cut off point of about IQ. 70, which is the cut off point used by the AAMD. The incidence of mental retardation in the United States is estimated to be about 6.5 million persons, or roughly 3 percent of the population. This figure is based on a cut off point of about IQ. 70, which is the cut off point used by the AAMD. Most states have laws providing that individuals with IQ's below 70 who evidence socially incompetent or disapproved behaviour can be classified as mentally retarded and committed to institutions." At page 506 and 507, the learned Author deals with the different levels of mental retardation and in regard to mild mental retardation with I.Q. 52 to 68 it is stated at page 506: "Mild mental retardation (IQ 52-68). As shown in the table on page 507, this group constitutes by far the largest number of those labeled mentally retarded. Persons in this group are considered "educable", and their intellectual levels as adults are comparable to that of the average 8 to 11 year-old child. Their social adjustment often approximates that of the adolescent, although they tend to lack the normal adolescent's imagination, inventiveness, and judgment. Ordinarily they do not show signs of brain pathology or other physical anomalies. Often they require some measure of supervision due to limited ability to foresee the consequences of their actions. With early diagnosis, parental assistance, and special educational programs, the great majority can adjust socially, master simple academic and occupational skills and become self supporting citizens." According to the petitioner examined as P.W. 1, the respondent was exhibiting various abnormalities in her behaviour after they started living together. She always preferred to be alone and remaining alone, she appeared to be talking to herself. She did not mix with others. She always showed repugnance to sex. During the whole period of the petitioner's married life with the respondent, living together, only intermittently he had sexual relationship with her only 3 or 4 times and that too with use of force. P.W. 1 deposed that on such occasions he was left with a guilty feeling as though he had raped a girl of 8 or 10 years in age. PWs. 3 and 4 are neighbours of the respondent. They have deposed that the respondent is mentally retarded right from her childhood. P.W. 6 is the petitioner's sister and P.W. 5 is her husband. PWs. 3 and 4 are neighbours of the respondent. They have deposed that the respondent is mentally retarded right from her childhood. P.W. 6 is the petitioner's sister and P.W. 5 is her husband. Both these witnesses speak about the abnormal behaviour of the respondent, after she was brought to the petitioner's residence after marriage. P.W. 6 has deposed the respondent had to be assisted during the wedding ceremony in the Church to hold the "manthrakodi" preventing it from falling on the ground from her head where it was placed by the Priest giving the impression that the respondent was unaware of the solemn ceremony she was undergoing. P.W. 2 the petitioner's father corroborates the evidence of P.W. 1 in material particulars. These witnesses have impressed me as honest and straightforward. I do not see any valid reason to disbelieve their testimony. 10. The respondent examined as R.W. 1 was able to answer the questions put to her in chief examination. But in cross examination she stated that she took oath with the bible in her hands but does not know what the Bible contains. She does not know the Ten Commandments. She knows that the case against her is instituted by Bappukutty to get rid of her. She confesses that her mother occasionally put her signature. She used to sign Usha Abraham after marriage. Her husband's name is Abraham Jacob, but she does not know whether he is Abraham or Jacob. At page 6 of her deposition she has stated as follows: "I signed as directed by my Advocate. I do not know what is written in the said affidavit. I have signed at least 25 times at the office of my advocate. On all those occasions I signed as directed by my advocate. I will not utter a lie. Bappukutty also will not utter a lie. Bappukutty's father Pappa has spoken many lies. All that Pappa said in Court are all lies. He does not speak lies outside the court. Pappa, my husband and others treated me with affection while I was with them. Sali was also affectionate to me. Sali also deposed lies in court. She does not speak lies outside court. They have not spoken lies to me at any time." Referring to the letter Ext. B1 she says at page 10: "What I have written in Ext. B1 is at the dictation of Bappukutty. Sali was also affectionate to me. Sali also deposed lies in court. She does not speak lies outside court. They have not spoken lies to me at any time." Referring to the letter Ext. B1 she says at page 10: "What I have written in Ext. B1 is at the dictation of Bappukutty. I must have taken about one hour for chalking out what I have written in Ext. B1. She further says that she "will not be able to draft a reply to any of the letters if she is asked to do so. She cannot even write a reply even if dictated to her. At page 11 of her deposition she states as follows: "I have not heard about Christ, I do not know anything about Christ. In the petitioner's house at Niranam there are two cows and calves. There are no oxen. The calves were born to the cows. I have not seen cows delivering calves. Cows are being fed with straw and that is the reason why calves are born to them. I have no children. I have not been shown how children are born. Children will be born only if there is sexual relationship between man and his wife. I had asked for such relationship with Bappukutty. He was always agreeable for such relationship. While staying with Bappukutty my mother used to frequently come and take me to our house. I had lived with Bappukutty for a total of 10-20 days." At page 12 she confesses that she does not know to tell the time looking at a watch. She is not able to collect the balance if a ten rupee note is given towards bus fare Rs. 1.20. She used to be accompanied by her mother or somebody else right from infancy till the date on which she was deposing in court. She states that she has not read the petition for divorce and that she was deposing that the allegations in the petition are not true, on instructions from her advocate. To a direct question as to whether she has any objection for this petition being allowed, she gave the answer "No. I have no objection". She has also admitted that she did not understand the object and purpose of marriage at the time when the marriage ceremony was being performed. At page 8 of her deposition, she states as follows: "(Q). She has also admitted that she did not understand the object and purpose of marriage at the time when the marriage ceremony was being performed. At page 8 of her deposition, she states as follows: "(Q). You went to the Church only as directed by your parents. Is it not so? (A) Yes. I do not remember how much time the Priest took to conduct the ceremonies. At the time when the marriage ceremonies were conducted were you aware of the objects and purpose of those ceremonies? (Q). I did not then understand but later understood the purpose and object of it. I had my own understanding the object and purpose, without being told by anybody-else. I understood the object and purpose of marriage when I was taken to Bappukutty's house, (Q) What you understand by marriage was that you will be taken from your house to Bappukutty's house? (A) Yes, It was the next day morning after the marriage that we went to Bappukutty's house." These answers given by the respondent in cross examination would indicate that she is not possessed of sufficient capacity of mind to understand the nature of the contract of marriage and the duties and responsibilities that it gave rise to between the parties as husband and wife. She is not aware that she is a Christian. In spite of having born in a Christian family and brought up in that family for 26 years of her age on the date of her deposition, she has confessed that she was not heard about Christ and did not know anything about Christ. The medical report understood in the light of the evidence of P.W. 7 would clearly show that the respondent is subnormal in her mental and intellectual faculties. The deposition of R.W. 1 shows that the respondent is so deficient in mind and intellect that she was not aware of the purpose of marriage. Nor was she possessed of sufficient capacity of mind to understand the nature of the contract of marriage and the duties and responsibilities that gave rise to between the parties as husband and wife. 11. Nor was she possessed of sufficient capacity of mind to understand the nature of the contract of marriage and the duties and responsibilities that gave rise to between the parties as husband and wife. 11. Counsel for respondent relies on the Levels of Intelligence mentioned in page 72 of the Text Book on Preventive and Social Medicine by J. E. Park, 3rd Edition, as follows: Levels of Intelligence I.Q. Range Idiot 0-24 Imbecile 25-49 Moron 50-49 Border line 70-79 Low normal 80-89 Normal 90-109 Superior 110-119 Very Superior 120-139 Near Genius 140-and over Counsel for the respondent relies also on the following passage occurring in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 19th Edn. page 388: "Mental Defect - Mental defect or amentia is called "domentia naturalis" by lawyers and is defined as follows: "Mental defectiveness is legally defined in England as a condition of arrested or incomplete development of mind existing before the age of 18 years whether arising from inherent causes or induced by a disease or injury". It includes chiefly three grades, known as idiocy, imbecility, and feeblemindedness. Idiocy. This is a congenital condition due to the defective development of the mental faculties. All grades of this condition exist from the helpless life of a mere vegetable organism to one which can be compared with the life of young children, as far as mental development is concerned. An idiot is wanting in memory and will power, is devoid of emotions, has no initiative of any kind, is unable to fix attention on any subject and "is unable to guard himself against common physical dangers" He is usually quiet, gentle and timid, though he can be easily irritated. He cannot express himself by articulate language, but he may be able to make himself understood by certain signs, cries or sounds. In some cases he is able to recognise his relatives, and learn with great difficulty. He is usually filthy in his habit and has no concern as to what he eats or drinks. He is very often depraved in morals, and is sometimes cruel to weaker children as well as animals. There is always some bodily deformity or peculiarity, such as a small (micro-cephalic), large (macrocephalic, hydrocephalic) or misshapen head, cleft or highly arched palate, irregularly set teeth, enlarged tonsils, adenoids, curved bones, etc. Imbecility. - This is a minor form of idiocy, and may or may not be congenital. There is always some bodily deformity or peculiarity, such as a small (micro-cephalic), large (macrocephalic, hydrocephalic) or misshapen head, cleft or highly arched palate, irregularly set teeth, enlarged tonsils, adenoids, curved bones, etc. Imbecility. - This is a minor form of idiocy, and may or may not be congenital. Imbeciles are "incapable of managing themselves or their affairs or in the case of children of being taught to do so". They are able to speak, though their command of language is very poor. Their memory is very feeble. In some cases it is highly developed, though not the intellect. They can mechanically repeat without any mistake what is taught to them, but cannot understand its meaning. They are easily roused to passion, and may consequently become dangerous. They may commit theft or even murder. Owing to their repulsive manners and habits it is not possible to associate with them, but with a little patience and perseverance they can be taught to dress decently, to eat properly and to control their animal instincts. Feeble-mindedness. - Under the Mental Deficiency (England) Act, 1913 feebleminded persons or morons are defined as persons in whose case there exists from birth or from an early age mental defectiveness not amounting to imbecility, yet so pronounced that they require care, supervision and control for their own protection, or for the protection of others, or, in the case of children, that they by reason of such defectiveness appear to be permanently incapable of receiving proper benefit from instruction in ordinary schools. Feeble minded individuals do not, as a rule, present bodily deformities and stigmata of degeneration, and are often capable of making of their own living although they lack in initiative and ability for any work of responsibility. Such persons, however, develop vicious or criminal propensities, especially of a sexual nature, and are apt to commit assaults or even murders, as they are incapable of restraining their impulses. At page 393 of the book it is stated as follows: "The 1968 January International Classification published by W.H.O. describes five levels Viz., borderline (I.Q. from 84 to 70), mild (I.Q. from 69 to 55) moderate (I.Q. from 54 to 40) severe (I.Q. from 39 to 25), profound (I.Q. from 24 and below). The same classification is used in U.S.A. In India we still follow The Mental Deficiency Act, 1927, England, which recognised the three categories, viz. The same classification is used in U.S.A. In India we still follow The Mental Deficiency Act, 1927, England, which recognised the three categories, viz. (i) idiocy, (ii) imbecility and (iii) feeblemindedness described above." Dr. Philip John in his deposition at page 8, has stated: The earlier method of classification was called the "Termane Classification" which was based on the ability of self help. According to that classification, which is no longer in use, categorisation is as Idiot, Imbeciles, Morone and Feebleminded To a specific question as to whether the I.Q. of an idiot, according to that classification is not from 0 to 24, P.W. 7 has answered he is not quite sure because that classification is no longer in use. He has further stated that the text book on Preventive and Social Medicine by J. E. Park is not a text book for Psychiatry but for Social and Preventive Medicine for the Fourth Year M.B.B.S. students, and the classification contained in that book is based only on verbal and performance tests. According to him, the classification followed in India is of the American Association for the Mentally deficient. In the case arising out of the Indian Divorce Act seeking a declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that the respondent was a "lunatic or idiot" at the time of marriage, we are not really concerned, with the classification of the mentally retarded contained in the Mental Deficiency Act, 1927 of England which according to Modi is still followed in India. In the present case, the question is as to whether the respondent is a "lunatic or idiot" within the meaning of S.19(3) of the Indian Divorce Act. In considering the question as to the meaning of the expression "lunatic or idiot" this Court in the decision in ILR 1976 (2) Ker. 357 in the passage cited above has laid down the test that if the court is satisfied on the evidence on record that one of the spouses was not at the time of marriage possessed of sufficient capacity of mind to understand the nature of the contract of marriage and the duties and responsibilities which gave rise to between the parties as husband and wife, then the marriage may be annulled on the ground that one of the spouses was not of sound mind. On the basis of the classification of the Mental Deficiency contained in the text book of Preventive and Social Medicine by J. E. Park and also the observations contained in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent can be classified only as a 'Moron' and hence does not fall within the meaning of the expression "lunatic or idiot", contained in S.19 of the Indian Divorce Act. 12. The question for consideration as already adverted to is not really one of classification but as to whether the respondent at the time of marriage was possessed of sufficient capacity of mind to understand the nature of the contract of marriage and the duties and responsibilities it gave rise to between the parties as husband and wife. In the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Mt. Titli v. Alfred Robert Jones (AIR 1934 Allah. 273) relied on by this Court in ILR 1976 (2) Ker. 357 it is stated at page 283: "We are not bound by the definition of an "idiot" as found in medical literature. We have to read the word "idiot", used in S.19, Divorce Act, as a word used in its ordinary significance." In the light of the medical report Ext. X1 the significance of which is explained by P.W. 7 and the evidence of R.W. 1, it appears clear to me that the respondent was not possessed of sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of the contract of marriage and the duties and responsibilities involved in the relationship of marriage. 13. Learned Counsel for the respondent relies on Exts. Bl to B13 in support of his contention that the respondent had not been understood by the petitioner and his parents as a person so retarded in mental and intellectual capacities as not to understand the significance of marriage and the duties and responsibilities attached thereto. Ext. B1 dated 4-3-1976 is a letter of the petitioner addressed to R.W. 2, the mother of the respondent requesting her to advance some money for him to go to the Gulf Countries. Ext. B1 contains also the postscript of the respondent requesting her mother to raise a loan and pay the amount to the petitioner. In her deposition as R.W. 1 the respondent has stated what she has written in Ext. Ext. B1 contains also the postscript of the respondent requesting her mother to raise a loan and pay the amount to the petitioner. In her deposition as R.W. 1 the respondent has stated what she has written in Ext. B1 was at the dictation of the petitioner and she must have taken about one hour for writing down the same. She has further confessed that she will not be able to draft a reply to a letter and cannot even take down if a reply is dictated to her. Exts. B2, B3, B7, B9 and B10 are letters by the petitioner to the respondent sent from his place of employment in the Gulf Countries. These letters no doubt disclose a great affection that the petitioner was displaying towards the respondent, and would indicate that his relationship with the respondent was one of extreme cordiality. The letters would also indicate that he had taken some steps to obtain a passport for the respondent and was also making arrangements to get a house and set up a home at his place of employment. Exts. B11 and B12 are letters from the petitioner's mother to R.W. 2. Ext. B12 contains also a note by the petitioner's father P.W. 2 which is separately marked as Ext. B12(a), Ext. B11 and B12 also do not indicate any apprehension in the minds of the parents of the petitioner about the mental and intellectual deficiency of the respondent. The petitioner as P.W. 1 in his deposition has stated that he was assured by the respondent's mother that the condition of the respondent will improve in course of time and she should be treated with affection. He has also deposed that he used to get letters regarding the improvement in the condition of the respondent and it was in that context that he had written the letters referred. to above in terms of affection and concern about the respondent. He has also stated that he has affection and sympathy for the respondent even now. Exts. B4 and B5 are photos and photocards sent to the respondent. 14. to above in terms of affection and concern about the respondent. He has also stated that he has affection and sympathy for the respondent even now. Exts. B4 and B5 are photos and photocards sent to the respondent. 14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that evidence is adduced in this case to show that the respondent is so deficient in mental and intellectual capacity as not to understand the object and purpose of marriage and that she was unaware that she was entering into a marital relationship with the petitioner. Even if the explanation of the petitioner is not accepted the letters do not prove anything in regard to the mental and intellectual capacity of the respondent and the letters will not make the respondent a normal person if otherwise she is not. The letters according to the learned counsel, if understood in the context explained by P.W. 1 contains advices to the respondent to have self confidence and to improve to manners and behaviour underlying an awareness on the part of the petitioner of the mental and intellectual deficiency of the respondent. 15. Even though the explanation relating to the context in which the letters were written is not satisfactory, there is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if otherwise the respondent is proved to be a "lunatic or idiot", the letters will not in any way improve her mental and intellectual condition. 16. From what is discussed above it appears clear to me that the respondent has a mental and intellectual capacity of only a child aged 8-11- years. She cannot therefore be considered to be possessed of sufficient capacity of mind to understand the nature of the contract of marriage and the duties and responsibilities it gave rise to between the parties as husband and wife. Point No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and on Point No. 2 my answer is that the respondent at the time of marriage was not capable of giving consent for the marriage understanding its objects, implications and purpose and that she had not given any such consent. Point No. 3. It follows from the discussion on points 1 and 2 that the respondent is not capable of normal sexual relationship with the petitioner. Point No. 4. In the light of the evidence afforded by Ext. Point No. 3. It follows from the discussion on points 1 and 2 that the respondent is not capable of normal sexual relationship with the petitioner. Point No. 4. In the light of the evidence afforded by Ext. X1 it cannot be said that the respondent is impotent. Point No. 5 The petitioner has a further case that the marriage between himself and the respondent is null and void for the reason that his consent for the marriage was obtained by fraud. The question of fraud was considered by this Court in Daniel v. Sarala (ILR 1976 (2) Ker. 357 at page 393: "38. ...... I do not think this is a ground available for the petitioner in a petition under S.19 of the Indian Divorce Act. That is not made a ground for nullifying a marriage. The provision in S.19 that nothing in that section shall affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to make decrees of nullity of marriage on the ground that the consent of either party was obtained by force or fraud only saves the existing rights, if any, to move the High Court for that purpose. There is no jurisdiction for this Court to pass a decree of nullity of marriage on the ground that consent of either party was obtained by force or fraud. If it is a right available to a party under the general law to invalidate a marriage, the remedy lies in ordinary proceedings before the Civil Court wherein such actions are to be instituted. It is also held in the aforesaid decision that the parents of the girl cannot be expected to disclose the deficiency of the girl during the discussion relating to a marriage settlement and the non disclosure in such circumstances according to this decision cannot be treated as active concealment. The learned Judge has observed at page 394: "There may be many facts with regard to a girl which, her parents may not disclose when negotiating a settlement. The learned Judge has observed at page 394: "There may be many facts with regard to a girl which, her parents may not disclose when negotiating a settlement. If the girl is too poor in her studies or is unhealthy such as by recurrent attacks of asthma or is very poor at attending to domestic duties, the parents will naturally be not anxious to volunteer the information to the prospective bridegroom, for, it may sometimes be foolish on their part to maintain these as the normal result would be to scare away even those who would after the marriage take these as matters of course and adjust themselves to it." Eventhough the parents of the respondent were aware of the mental and intellectual deficiency of their daughter it may well be that they had a hope that her condition will improve after some time especially after marriage, and they cannot be held guilty of active concealment. It cannot also be said that they owed a duty to tell the prospective bride-groom that the girl proposed for marriage to him is deficient in mental and intellectual capacity. I therefore answer Point No. 5 against the petitioner. Point No. 6 The petitioner had in May, 1982 filed O.P. No. 3594/1982 for the same relief as is claimed in this O.P. The earlier O.P. was defective for the reason that at the time when that petitioner was presented the petitioner was not resident in India as required by S.2 of the Indian Divorce Act. The petitioner therefore filed C.M.P. No. 21132 of 1982 for permission to withdraw O.P. No. 3594 of 1982, and filed the present O.P. on 29-9-1982 at a time when he was present in India. O.P. No. 3594 of 1982 was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to pursue the matter by way of a fresh petition as per the order of this Court dated 20-1-1983. A certified copy of the order in O.P. No. 3594 of 1982 is produced in this Case and marked as Ext. A2. A contention is raised in the counter affidavit that the present O.P. is also defective for the reason of the absence of the petitioner in India on the date of the order Ext. A2. It is not disputed that the petitioner was present in India on 22-9-1982 when he presented the present O.P. No. 7269 of 1982 before this Court. A contention is raised in the counter affidavit that the present O.P. is also defective for the reason of the absence of the petitioner in India on the date of the order Ext. A2. It is not disputed that the petitioner was present in India on 22-9-1982 when he presented the present O.P. No. 7269 of 1982 before this Court. The point raised in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner should be resident in India on the date on which this Court passed Ext. A2 order permitting him to withdraw the O.P. 3594 of 1982 with liberty to file a fresh petition for the same relief. The requirements of S.2 of the Indian Divorce Act is only that the petitioner should be resident in India at the time of presenting the petition. There is no dispute that he was present on 22-9-1982 on which date the present O.P. was presented before this Court. I therefore answer Point No. 6 in favour of the petitioner. Point No. 7. The contention that the original petition is barred by limitation is not pressed by the Counsel for the respondent in view of the provisions of sub-s.(3) of S.29 of the Indian Limitation Act. Point No. 8. In the result, there will be a decree declaring the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent as null and void. The original petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.