JUDGMENT K.M. Agarwal, J. 1. This is an appeal by the wife filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (in short, the "Act"), against the decree, declaring her marriage with the respondent void under Sections 12(1)(b) and (c) of the Act on the basis of a petition filed by the husband. 2. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed at Durg on 19.6.1987 in accordance with the customary rites prevailing amongst Jains. On 4.1.1988 the respondent filed a petition for declaring his marriage with the appellant void on the grounds mentioned in Clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section, 12. or in the alternative, for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act. It was alleged that from before the date of marriage, the appellant was suffering from mental disorder, known as Schizophrenia and that suppressing this fact, the consent of the respondent for the said marriage was obtained. These allegations were denied by the appellant and the petition was resisted, but the Court below was pleased to pass a decree as aforesaid. Being aggrieved, the wife has preferred this appeal. 3. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that sufficient opportunity to produce her evidence was not afforded to the appellant, deserves to be rejected. The appellant's application under Order 18, Rule 17(a), read with Section 151 CPC was rejected on 23.6.1990 by the Court below. While doing so, adequate and detailed reasons were given. Repetition or reproduction of reasons would be of no avail. Suffice it to say that the appellant failed to avail of several opportunities given to her for the purpose of examining her witnesses. She did not file list of her witnesses, or did she pay process fee for summoning her witnesses, though several dates were given for examination of her witnesses. The Court below was, therefore, right in rejecting her application under Order 18, Rule 17(a), read with Section 151 CPC, while permitting her to examine herself as a witness in support of her case. 4. Section 12(1)(b) and (c) of the Act reads as follows :-- "12(1). Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act; shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds namely,-- "(b). 4. Section 12(1)(b) and (c) of the Act reads as follows :-- "12(1). Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act; shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds namely,-- "(b). that the marriage is in contravention of the condition specified in Clause (ii) of Section 5; or "(c). that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner was required........ the consent of such guardian was obtained by force or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent". Clause (ii) of Section 5 reads as follows :-- "5. A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely :--' "(ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party -- (a). is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or (b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of childdren." The case of the respondent was not that the appellant was incapable of giving valid consent for the marriage in consequence of unsoundness of her mind. His case was that though capable of giving a valid consent, the wife was suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children. Dr. Prakash Banthia (A.W. 3) was the only doctor who had examined the appellant before the date of her marriage, as also after the date of marriage. He was a well known psychiatrist, having his Nursing Home at Nagpur. His evidence would show that as per entries of his O.P.D. register at page 274, Ku. Sunita Pannalal Vora, aged 17 years, resident of Yawatmal, referred by Dr. S.M. Vora Yawatmal was examined and given treatment at his Nursing Home. Photocopy of these entries filed as Ex. A. 6-C would show that this treatment continued from 1.3.1983 to 12.5.1983. The case history given in Ex. A. 6-C mentions: Sudden onset. Change in behaviour and given following symptoms :-- (1) Sleeplessness. (2) Stares in mirrors or in blank space. (3) Talks irrelevant. (4) Does not study. Photocopy of these entries filed as Ex. A. 6-C would show that this treatment continued from 1.3.1983 to 12.5.1983. The case history given in Ex. A. 6-C mentions: Sudden onset. Change in behaviour and given following symptoms :-- (1) Sleeplessness. (2) Stares in mirrors or in blank space. (3) Talks irrelevant. (4) Does not study. (5) Afraid of some one coming. (6) Often wanders aimlessly. (7) Reserved, aloof. (8) Impultive behaviour. (9) Often disobedient. It is also mentioned that the patient "denies all above symptoms & says she is alright" Note appended was "at present talks relevant. No grievances, gesticulating (sick)." Then gradual improvement was recorded and ultimately on 12.5.1983, the patient was found complaining of dullness only. Similarities in names, age, father's name and place of residence unquestionably fix the identity of the patient with the appellant. Dr. S.M. Vora, who had referred the patient to Dr. Banthia appears to be the brother of the appellant, as she admitted in paragraph 32 of her deposition that her second brother Shantilal Vora, was a doctor. Ex. A. 7 would show that the appellant was again examined in Banthia's Nursing Home on 11.10.1986, i.e. before the date of her marriage. The document Ex. A. 8 and Ex. A.9, coupled with the evidence of Dr. Banthia (A.W. 3) would show that she was further admitted in Banthia's Nursing Home on 16.9.1987 and discharged on 23.9.1987, i.e. after the date of her marriage. Ex. A.9 mentions past history of 1983 and 1986 and says "Psy. test report then shows anxiety and no psychotic features". The letter dated 23.9.1987 (Ex. A. 1) written by Dr. Banthia to Dr. Shail Verma also mentions that the appellant's old psychological report "only shows Anxiety symptoms which were poted. (sick, parhaps means perpreteated) by prolonged fast. There were no psychotic features." It further says, "At present she is dull & sedated Otherwise she seems to have recovered well under your treatment. I kept her here for observation & modification of drugs. Her psychological test report suggest only mild depression." It also refers to Dr. Shahil's observations in these words : "From your observation & history it seems she had acute psychotic break down most probably meniac psychosis. In Diff. diagnosis one can think of schizoaffective." In paragraph 16 of his deposition, Dr. Her psychological test report suggest only mild depression." It also refers to Dr. Shahil's observations in these words : "From your observation & history it seems she had acute psychotic break down most probably meniac psychosis. In Diff. diagnosis one can think of schizoaffective." In paragraph 16 of his deposition, Dr. Banthia stated that since 1983 the appellant was suffering from a type of psychosis, which is known as Schizophreia and is a mental disease. This evidence does not prove that the appellant suffered from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children. The evidence of other doctors and their reports also do not show affirmatively that the appellant suffered from Schizophrenia, or from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent could not, therefore, be annulled on the ground mentioned in Section 12(1)(b), read with Section 5(ii) of the Act. 5. The evidence brought on record by the respondent shows that even the doctor brother of the appellant suspected that she was suffering from some mental disorder and, therefore, he had referred her to Dr. Banthia in 1983 as per entries made in the O.P.D. register maintained in the Nursing Home of Dr. Banthia. Just a few months before the date of engagement (i.e., 19.4.1987), she was sent for medical check up, i.e., for psycho-diagnostic evaluation of functional disorders in the Nursing Home of Dr. Banthia, as evidenced by document Ex. A. 7. As deposed by Dr. Banthia (Ex. 3). since 1983 the appellant was suffering from a type of psychosis, which is known as Schizophrenia and is a mental disease. In these circumstances, it was incumbent upon the appellant and her relations to have disclosed these facts to the respondent and his relations. The appellant could not avoid this initial obligation on her part and on the part of her relations by asserting that before and at the time of engagement, the respondent and his relations had seen and questioned her, because the disease was of such a nature that even expert psychiatrists could not detect it without examining the patient. The marriage was performed on 19.6.1987. The marriage was performed on 19.6.1987. The symptoms of mental disorder in the appellant were alleged to have been smelt and observed in her abnormal behaviour at the time of garlanding and stepping in bridal home ceremonies and soon thereafter doctors were consulted at Durg, Bhilai, Delhi and Nagpur. The appellant was shown to have taken excessive drugs on 1.12.1987 and to have tried to commit suicide. Similar attempt was alleged to have been made by her before the date of marriage. This was one of the tendencies that are generally found in persons suffering from Schizophreia, or some mental disorder. The marriage took place on 19.6.1987 and this petition for annulment of marriage was filed on 4.1.1988. In between the respondent was running to doctors with the appellant. The medical evidence produced on record, at least, shows that the appellant was suffering from some mental disorder from before the date of marriage. All the doctors examined by the respondent were independent persons. There is no reason, why they would come forward to tell a lie. For all these reasons, the respondent was entitled to annulment of his marriage with the appellant on the ground mentioned in Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, because it has been proved that the consent of the respondent for his marriage with the appellant was obtained by fraud, which consisted in suppression of material fact from his knowledge. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant filed written arguments before me and also relied on those filed before the Court below. All these arguments have been taken into account, while considering the case of the appellant. 7. The last question that remains to be decided is about the quantum of permanent alimony awarded to the appellant by the Court below. This amount has been fixed at Rs. 500/- per month for the reasons given in paragraph 62 of the impugned judgment. This amount of alimony, or the reasons given by the Court below do not appear to be unjust. If the circumstances change, the appellant may apply under Section 25(2) of the Act for enhancement of the amount of alimony. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed with this modification in the impugned decree that the marriage stands annulled only on the ground mentioned in Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. If the circumstances change, the appellant may apply under Section 25(2) of the Act for enhancement of the amount of alimony. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed with this modification in the impugned decree that the marriage stands annulled only on the ground mentioned in Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs of this appeal.