Judgment : The unsuccessful husband before the learned Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli in O.P. No.89 of 1989 aggrieved by its order dated 111. 1991. is the appellant herein, canvassing the correctness and legality of the order passed by learned trial Judge in the above case, rejecting the claim of the appellant to declare that the marriage held between him and the respondent herein on 210. 1988 was null and void on the ground of insanity as provided under Sec.19(3) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. 2. The appellant and the respondent being Christians by religion got their marriage performed in accordance with the caste and religious custom on 210. 1988 in the “Dhusnavis” Church of Tuticorin, in the presence of their respective relatives. It was the case of the appellant that after the marriage, the parents of the respondent took her to their residence under the pretext of performing certain poojas to get the rituals based on sentimentalities and assured to sent her back and thus they had passed time by six months without sending her. But even thereafter they did not send the respondent to the house of the appellant/petitioner and thus in restitution of conjugal life among the parties herein were denied. Even so, the appellant/ petitioner came to know that the respondent was not of sound mind but however suffering for want of sanity even during the time of marriage. Nevertheless on 15. 1989 the parents of the respondent brought the respondent to the house of the petitioner and during the said sojourn the appellant/ petitioner came to know that the mental faculty of the respondent was that of a child aged 10 and not a matured one and that she was quite unfit to be a member to lead the conjugal life with the appellant. On 4. 1989, the respondent was examined by the doctor by name Jayasankaran and got treatment for her insanity. Likewise, two months thereafter, on 6. 1989, the Assistant Professor of Psychohistry of Tirunelveli Medical College had also examined the respondent and treated her. On 4. 1989, the respondent was examined by the doctor by name Jayasankaran and got treatment for her insanity. Likewise, two months thereafter, on 6. 1989, the Assistant Professor of Psychohistry of Tirunelveli Medical College had also examined the respondent and treated her. For the mere reason of the insanity of the respondent and for her want of mental maturity, the appellant was not able to lead the family life with her and it was found out that even during the marriage and prior to the marriage, the respondent was of unsound mind and by suppressing the said fact the parents of the respondent however managed to give her in marriage and celebrated the marriage as aforesaid and for the said reason as it was found subsequently, the appellant approached the trial court praying to declare that their marriage solemnized was a nullity under Sec.19 of the Indian Divorce Act. .3. The petition was resisted by and on behalf of the respondent/ wife by filing a counter in which, it was contended inter alia that the alleged insanity of the respondent was denied and that their marriage was fixed by the elders of the respective parties by showing the bride and bride-groom, having been verified by their respective parents by mutual agreements and after personal attendance and then afterwards by conducting the ‘banns’ three times prior to the performing of the marriage as per the religious custom, the marriage among themselves in accordance with the religious custom was performed in the Church on 210. 1988 and subsequently, they were living together for a period of six months and thereafter the respondent was ill-treated with cruelty by the appellant/ petitioner by demanding 30 sovereigns of gold jewellery, but however on the inability of bringing the said jewellery the respondent was physically ill-treated, which resulted in her being affected mentally and she came out of the conjugal home and she had the treatment subsequently for her illness. The alleged insanity even during the time of performance of the marriage was totally denied and thus the petition filed under Sec. 19 of the Indian Divorce Act was stoutly resisted before the trial court. 4. On recording the oral evidence through P.Ws. The alleged insanity even during the time of performance of the marriage was totally denied and thus the petition filed under Sec. 19 of the Indian Divorce Act was stoutly resisted before the trial court. 4. On recording the oral evidence through P.Ws. 1 to 5 and R.Ws.l and 2 and marking the documentary evidence Exs.P-1 to P-3 the learned trial Judge found that the petitioner/ appellant had virtually and totally failed to prove that on the date of the marriage on 210. 1988, the respondent was an insane person and as such, dismissed the petition without costs. Aggrieved at this, the petitioner/ husband, who lost before the trial court has preferred this appeal as referred to supra. 5. I have heard the Bar for the respective parties herein for and against the impugned order under this appeal. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge was erroneous in the sense, that the medical evidence given by P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the medicos, fully substantiate and render total corroboration to Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 the medical certificate given by them pertaining to the mental illness found diagnised and treatment given to the respondent herein during the relevant time and that by overlooking the said portion of the evidence, rejecting the petition of the appellant is highly erroneous and that therefore, the appellant/ petitioner has sought his redressal before this Court. Mr.Peppin Fernando, learned counsel appearing for the respondent ventured his effort totally in support of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge by pinpointing the fact that on the day of performance of marriage to show that the respondent/ wife was suffering from any mental retardation, disorder or illness no materials were made available nor any legal evidence nor even the semblance of the evidence atleast to have the cognizance in providing the relief under Sec. 19 of the Act was made available. While stressing the above contention learned counsel drew my attention to the propensity and the legality of the evidence adduced by the medicos. 6. In the context of the above rival position, the only point which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is vitiated with any miscalculations or erroneous approach resulting in substantial injustice to the parties. 7. 6. In the context of the above rival position, the only point which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is vitiated with any miscalculations or erroneous approach resulting in substantial injustice to the parties. 7. The parties to this proceedings are Christians by religion and pursuant to their religious custom of seeing the bride and bride-groom along with the parents by mutual visits at their respective houses, “conducting the engagement having waited for the complete performance of three banns in the Church the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was accordingly performed on 210. 1988 is not in controversy among the parties herein but rather it was admitted, it was not as if both the spouses were strangers to the place where the marriage took place but it seems that the evidence goes to show that they belong to the same place and that too, living in the same locality. It is noticed at this stage, that it is not a love marriage, but however, a marriage arranged by their parents after performing all formalities and customs and three banns have been duly performed in the Church. The reasons for performing the ‘banns’ admittedly and evidently, is that while pronouncing the” banns’ openly before all who are gathered in the Church, those who have got any objections or complaints are expected to remind the Father who being the authority, is expected to take note of them before celebrating the marriage. .8. According to the Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar Reprint Edition 1987 at page 117, ‘Banns’ would mean the proclamation of intended marriage in order that those who know of any impediment thereto may state it to the proper authorities. In other words, to make formal objection to an intended marriage. It is a public announcement of an intended marriage, required to be made in a.church or chapel. The object is to afford an opportunity for any person to interpose an objection if he knows of any impediment or other just cause why the marriage should not take place. In other words, to make formal objection to an intended marriage. It is a public announcement of an intended marriage, required to be made in a.church or chapel. The object is to afford an opportunity for any person to interpose an objection if he knows of any impediment or other just cause why the marriage should not take place. If this is the legal import and scope of the ‘Banns’ to be performed and has been performed in the instant case three times admittedly, in the context of no objection from any quarters having erupted would go to show clearly that there was nothing wrong nor anything extraordinary, abnormal were brought to the notice of the authorities during the process or completing the marriage till it was performed on 210. 1988. As I have already adverted to, both the spouses along with their parents were living in the same area and if the whole circumstances above referred to were taken into consideration, it could be seen that there could not have been laches on the part of the parents of the respective spouses and they could not have feigned knowledge of abnormality of the respondent, if any. 9. It was the specific finding of the learned trial Judge all through, of course, very elaborately and in detail, that the onus is heavily upon the appellant/ petitioner to prove that on the date of marriage the respondent/ wife was suffering from mental disorder or retardation and that fact was concealed from him and that therefore, the marriage conducted between him and her is a nullity as provided by law. If the said onus is seen as having been not discharged to any extent, then the appellant/ petitioner has no other go except to lose the case in toto. In the light of the rigour of the law in built in the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act, the onus of proof is heavily upon the appellant/ petitioner. In the context of the arguments advanced on behalf of the Bar for the appellant. I have perused Exs.P-2 and P-3. the certificates given by P. Ws.2 and 3 pertaining to the mental condition of the respondent during the year 1989. In the context of the arguments advanced on behalf of the Bar for the appellant. I have perused Exs.P-2 and P-3. the certificates given by P. Ws.2 and 3 pertaining to the mental condition of the respondent during the year 1989. It is noted that both the medicos had termed the illness of respondent, for which she was treated, as "Schizoprenia", it is the common knowledge that the mental diseases ~ schizophrenias’ is known for its vigorousness and sterile nature, but however, a serious disease, if one is suffering from the same, he will be put always under a constant treatment. Therefore, there cannot be any two opinion in treating the said diseases as a dreaded one unless it is cured properly. But the oral claim of the two medicos P.Ws.2 and 3 does not contain any explanation or semblance of the details of the disease, which in the result, the oral claim of the doctors would go in direct conflict with their claim made in their certificates Exs.P-2 and P-3. It is thus the very conflicting tendency and inconsistency in the claim of the medicos were identified. 10. In Ram Narain v. Rameshwari, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2260:J.T. (1988)3 S.C. 621: (1988) 4 S.C.C. 247 . the Supreme Court has observed in this regard, as follows: "The context in which the ideas of unsoundness of "mind" and "mental disorder’ occur in the section as grounds for dissolution of a marriage, requires the assessment of the degree of the "mental disorder". Its degree must be such as that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not recognises as grounds for grant of decree. If the mere existence of any degree of mental abnormality could justify dissolution of a marriage few marriages would, indeed, survive in law. "Schizophrenia" it is true, is said to no difficult mental affliction. It is said to be insidious in its onset and has hereditary predisposing factor. It is characterised by the shallowness of emotions and is marked by a detachment from reality. In parenoid states, the victim responds even to fleeting expressions of disapproval from others by disproportionate reactions generated by hallucinations of persecution. It is said to be insidious in its onset and has hereditary predisposing factor. It is characterised by the shallowness of emotions and is marked by a detachment from reality. In parenoid states, the victim responds even to fleeting expressions of disapproval from others by disproportionate reactions generated by hallucinations of persecution. Even well meant acts of kindness and of expression of sympathy appear to the victim as insidious traps, in its worst manifestation this illness produces acrude wrench from reality and bringe about a lowering of the higher mental functions. But the personality disintegration that characterises this illness may be of varying degrees. Not all schizophrenica are characterised by the same intensity of the disease. The mere branding of a person as schizophronic therefore will not suffice." 11. Noticing of the oral claim made by P.W.I, the petitioner himself along with P.W.4 and P.W.5, however in my serious consideration requires no merit and as such, I am not inclined to nor convinced with their legal credibility, to be accepted. All the more to say, if at all 1 can say, their oral claim would be of no use and render no assistance to improve the case of the appellant/petitioner, which would mean, as reasonably and justifiably pointed out by the trial Judge, there was no semblance of legal evidence or materials placed before the court to show that cither on the date of the performance of the marriage or prior to or subsequent thereto till respondent reached her parent’s house had any mental disorder and was suffering from mental immaturity like that of a child aged about 10 years rendering herself unfit to lead the conjugal life with the appellant. As I have observed already, the medical evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge is positive adequately, to say that if proper treatment is given to the respondent she must be alright and in spite of their evidence before the court of law, it has to be noted, that no attempt was made or questions put to them challenging the very mental faculty of the respondent herein for whom both the medicos had provided their medical aid and treatment. All these circumstances clinchingly demonstrated would go to show that the allegations dwelt upon by the appellant/ petitioner had no substance and merits in their entirety. 12. In Joykutty Mathew v. Valsamma Kuruvilla, A.I.R. 1990 Ker. 262. All these circumstances clinchingly demonstrated would go to show that the allegations dwelt upon by the appellant/ petitioner had no substance and merits in their entirety. 12. In Joykutty Mathew v. Valsamma Kuruvilla, A.I.R. 1990 Ker. 262. a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, has observed as follows: "If Sec.19 of the Divorce Act is read in comparison with Sec.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it is apparent that under the Hindu Marriage Act even lesser mental disorders and mental illness are made a ground for Divorce, while the Indian Divorce Act insists upon a much stricter standard of a party being a lunatic or idiot at the time of the marriage. This difference in the language of the two statutes contemplates a much more stricter proof and proof of a greater mental disorder than the one which would suffice for obtaining a decree for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act." 13. I have perused the entire order passed by the learned trial Judge under this appeal. It appears that the respondent gave evidence one made her appearance before the Court and she withstood the cross-examination. Her answers to the questions put by the bar as well as the court seems to be almost satisfactory. From the answers no abnormal conduct or behaviour could be presumed. Her consistent claim was that she was physically ill-trealed cruelly by the appellant subsequent to the marriage and in this context, she admitted that some treatment was given to her and for the said reason, she withdraw from the company of the appellant and sought asylum in her parent’s house. This aspect has not been legally contradicted. Therefore, the various elaborate findings and reasoning given by the learned trial Judge stands proved and found on par with the law and no unreasonableness could be attributed with. 14. In Usha v. Abraham. A.I.R. 1988 Ker. 95. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, while dealing with the scope of a case of this nature, has observed as follows: "A marriage is a civil contract as well as a religious sacrament. The voluntary consent of both parties is necessary for a valid marriage. The contract of marriage is simple and it does not require high degree of intelligence to comprehend. The voluntary consent of both parties is necessary for a valid marriage. The contract of marriage is simple and it does not require high degree of intelligence to comprehend. The text is whether a person in question was capable of understanding the nature of the contract or whether his mental condition was such that he was incapable of understanding it. In order to ascertain the nature of the contract of marriage a man must be mentally capable of appreciating that it involves responsibilities normally attaching to marriage. The parties to the marriage must be able to comprehend the significance of the promises and vows that flow from such transaction. There is a strong presumption that such consent has been given. The burden of proof on party attempting to impeach a marriage on the ground of want of consent is heavier than in the case of impeaching a commercial contract. The petitioner must show that because of the mental disorder the other spouses was unable to know the nature and consequences of his/her acts, A mere. weakness of intellect mild mental retardation or psychic inability will not justify an annulment of marriage. The wife undoubtedly suffered some sort of mental retardation. Her intelligence quotient was below average and she experienced some difficulty in adding or substracting single digits. However, the evidence showed that she was capable of understanding the ordinary matters in life. She could recollect the date of the marriage. She had given all details regarding the affairs in her own in the house of her husband. She used to go for shopping and used to doing work, such as preparing food, sweeping, washing vessels, etc. But in her cross-examination she had deposed that she did not know who was Christ. She also deposed that the cows were delivering calves since they were being fed with straw. Held, that wife was slightly feeble minded. However, feeble mindedness of the wife was not of such a nature that she was unable to know the nature and consequences of her acts." 15. Thus after having considered the entire gamut of the case in the context of the adduced legal evidence, a careful scrutiny of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge, would go to show clinchingly that nothing has been made available to ear mark the same as erroneous or lacking in legal sanctity or validity. Thus after having considered the entire gamut of the case in the context of the adduced legal evidence, a careful scrutiny of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge, would go to show clinchingly that nothing has been made available to ear mark the same as erroneous or lacking in legal sanctity or validity. For the said reason, I fully agree with the elaborate findings and reasonings given by the learned trial Judge in holding that no remedy can be made available to the husband/ appellant under Sec.19 of the Indian Divorce Act for his total and deliberate failure to establish the alleged insanity of the respondent wife who was legally wedded. In short to say, this appeal lacks in merits. 16. In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Consequently the order passed by the learned trial Judge in O.P. No.89 of 1989 on 111. 1991 is confirmed. However on facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.