George Joseph v. Alphonsa — 1998 DIGILAW 507 (KER)

Judgment :- K.K. Usha, J. This appeal is at the instance of a Christian husband whose prayer for a decree of nullity of his marriage with the 1st respondent has failed. The appellant contended that the 1st respondent was a lunatic at the time of the marriage and therefore he is entitled to a decree for nullity of his marriage under S.18 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 read with S.19. He had also alleged fraud on the part of the respondent in obtaining his consent for the marriage. The petition was dismissed by the learned single judge holding that the petitioner husband has failed to prove that the 1st respondent was a lunatic at the time of the marriage. The allegation of fraud was also found against him. Aggrieved by the above judgment of the learned single judge the petitioner husband has filed this appeal. 2. The marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was solemnised on 4.9.1995 at St. Thomas Forane Church, Thomapuram as per the rites and ceremonies prevailing in the Syrian Catholic Community. It is alleged in the petition that on the very first day of the marriage itself there was abnormal behaviour on the part of the 1st respondent. At the time of marriage ceremony she was over talkative and was laughing continuously. On the first night after the marriage which they spent at the parental home of the 1st respondent, it is alleged by the petitioner, the 1st respondent refused to have sex with him for the reason that she was having her menstral period and therefore, not doing well. It seems that she was afraid of something in the night. On 5.9.1995 the parties returned to the petitioner's house but they immediately went back to the 1st respondent's parental home, as the 1st respondent expressed fear of something. She said that she has not feeling well and has forgotten to take medicine from her house. She took some medicine on that day and on the next day again returned to the petitioner's house. Thereafter the 1st respondent's father used to come regularly and take her to his house on the pretext that her mother was not well. The petitioner found that the 1st respondent was forgetful in nature. On 8th October, 1995 she returned to the petitioner's house and stayed with him for one week. Thereafter the 1st respondent's father used to come regularly and take her to his house on the pretext that her mother was not well. The petitioner found that the 1st respondent was forgetful in nature. On 8th October, 1995 she returned to the petitioner's house and stayed with him for one week. During this period the petitioner found that the 1st respondent is an insane person. She started talking about inconsistent matters continuously without any reason and was laughing violently while sitting alone. Certain incidents have been narrated in the petition to show her forgetful nature. It is alleged that she told the petitioner that in her family her brother and younger sister are insane persons. She could not sleep during night. She always wanted to sleep with her mother. On 13.10.1995 at about mid-night she started crying and said that she wanted to see her mother immediately. She tried to open the door and run out. So on 14.10.1995 itself the petitioner approached the 1st respondent's father and told him about the unusual incidents. The 1st respondent was then taken to her parental home on 17.10.1995 and petitioner, 2nd respondent and 1st respondent's sister together took her to the Psychiatry Department of Ashirvad Hospital, Kannur. She was admitted there by Dr. K. Sivaramakrishnan. It is further alleged that at the time of admission the 2nd respondent told the doctor that the 1st respondent's elder brother and younger sister are also insane persons. 3. It is alleged that the 1st respondent was discharged from hospital on 20.10.1995 and thereafter she never came to the petitioner's house. During the 16 days when they resided together the marriage has not been consummated because of the abnormal behaviour of the 1st respondent. On 18.1.1996 when the respondent stopped taking medicines, she became ill again and ran away from the house. Later she was admitted in Fr. Muller's Hospital, Mangalore. She continued treatment for ten days there. She was violent again. By taking a knife and she tried to stab her father. According to the petitioner, even now she is continuing treatment for insanity. 4. The petitioner would further allege that on enquiry it was understood that besides the 1 st respondent, her mother, uncle, brother and younger sister are also suffering from lunacy. Dr. She was violent again. By taking a knife and she tried to stab her father. According to the petitioner, even now she is continuing treatment for insanity. 4. The petitioner would further allege that on enquiry it was understood that besides the 1 st respondent, her mother, uncle, brother and younger sister are also suffering from lunacy. Dr. Sivaramakrishnan who treated her expressed the opinion that her mental disease is inherited from her parents and it is incurable. It was also revealed on enquiry that she had been undergoing treatment for insanity till the date of her marriage. The petitioner, therefore, approached Ecclesiastical Tribunal of Thalacherry Diocese in February 1996 and the Tribunal declared the marriage between them as null and void. Now the order has been sent for getting confirmation from the Major Archbishop's Tribunal. The petitioner would allege that the 2nd respondent and his family members were well aware of the fact that the 1st respondent was a lunatic prior to the marriage and her insanity is incurable. They fraudulently concealed this fact from the petitioner before the marriage. For these reasons the petitioner prayed that his marriage with the 1st respondent is liable to be declared as null and void under S.18 read with S.19(3) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. 5. Even though the petitioner had impleaded the 2nd respondent to represent the 1st respondent as guardian, no order is seen sought or passed for appointing the 2nd respondent as guardian of the 1 st respondent, on the other hand, a counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent herself on behalf of both the respondents and she has been examined as RW1 before the learned single judge in support of the contentions taken by her in the written statement. The 1st respondent has denied all the allegations made against her. According to her, the marriage between the petitioner and herself was consummated on the 1st day of the marriage itself and it was incorrect to contend that she refused to have sexual intercourse on that night. They returned to the house of the petitioner on 5.9.1995 and it is not correct to say that she immediately went back to her parental home. She stayed for seven days in petitioner's house. She denied the allegations regarding taking medicine etc. They returned to the house of the petitioner on 5.9.1995 and it is not correct to say that she immediately went back to her parental home. She stayed for seven days in petitioner's house. She denied the allegations regarding taking medicine etc. According to her, she did not show any symptoms of an insane person during the above period. She made an allegation in the counter statement that the petitioner's father had made overtures towards her. Even though she complained about this to the petitioner, he did not dare to speak about this matter to his father. For this reason she was upset and then she was taken and admitted at Ashirvad Hospital, Kannur for treatment under Dr. K. Sivaramakrishnan, Psychiatrist. After returning home she suddenly stopped taking medicine which caused further trouble for her and later she was taken to Fr. Muller's Hospital, Mangalore. She was under the treatment of Dr. Satheesh Rao from 29.1.1996 to 26.3.1996. Certificate issued from there would show that she has been treated for mode disorder and that her illness started one month after her marriage. There was no reference to any history of mental disorder before the marriage and it showed that she would be capable of normal life for future. The allegation that her maternal uncle, brother and younger sister are suffering from lunacy is absolutely incorrect and denied. All her material uncles are leading happy and normal family life. She has two brothers, both of them are married and are leading happy family life. 3 of her sisters are also married and they are also happily living with husbands and children. Her elder sister, Jancy, is employed as a Clerk at Neyveli Lignite Corporation. Her husband is also employed there. Another sister, Jeena, is working as a General Nurse at National Heart Institution Delhi and younger sister, Lincy Mathew against whom the allegation of lunacy has been made is working as a Nurse at Bijapur Medical College, Karnataka. The 1st respondent had appeared for Pre-degree Examination of the University of Calicut held on April, 1990 with registration No. 3773. She further contends that the marriage proposal came through none other than the sister of the petitioner, Smt. CelinaKurian, who is staying about 200 metres away from the 1st respondent's parental home. The 1st respondent had appeared for Pre-degree Examination of the University of Calicut held on April, 1990 with registration No. 3773. She further contends that the marriage proposal came through none other than the sister of the petitioner, Smt. CelinaKurian, who is staying about 200 metres away from the 1st respondent's parental home. Celina Kurian and her husband have close acquaintance with the respondents and members of their family for more than six years prior to the marriage. She is not aware of any order passed by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal of Thalacherry Diocese. She claims that she is an accomplished girl and she is competent and capable of performing all marital obligations. No fraud has been committed by the 2nd respondent or his relatives as alleged in the petition and therefore the petition filed for decree of nullity is only to be dismissed. 6. Exts. A1 to A3 viz., Discharge certificate issued from the Ashirwad Hospital, Kannur in respect of the 1st respondent, prescription issued to the 1st respondent by Dr. Sivaramakrishnan, Psychiatrist, Kannur and medical bill for the purchase of medicines for the 1st respondent. On the side of the petitioner he was examined as PW1, his sister, Celina Kurian, as PW2. Dr. Satheesh Rao and Dr. K. Sivaramakrishnan as PWs. 3 and 4 and one Thomas Neerakkal as PW5. As mentioned earlier, the 1st respondent was examined as R1 in support of her case. Ext. B1 is the medical certificate dated 26.3.96 issued by Dr. Satheesh Rao, Psychiatrist, Fr. Muller's Hospital, Mangalore in respect of the 1st respondent. Records relating to treatment of the 1st respondent in the same hospital and in Ashirvad Hospital, Kannur are produced as Exts. XI to X3. 7. The learned single judge on appreciation of the entire evidence in the case came to the conclusion that after marriage the 1st respondent was treated for mental illness and did not accept the case put forward by the 1st respondent that the high dose of medicines prescribed by PW4 resulted in her mental illness. So also the learned judge did not accept the allegation made by the 1 st respondent against her father-in-law. But on the question whether the 1st respondent was a lunatic at the time of her marriage the learned judge found that there was total lack of evidence in the case. So also the learned judge did not accept the allegation made by the 1 st respondent against her father-in-law. But on the question whether the 1st respondent was a lunatic at the time of her marriage the learned judge found that there was total lack of evidence in the case. There was no material produced by the petitioner which would show that the 1st respondent was under treatment for mental illness before her marriage. The learned judge was not inclined to believe the testimony of PW5, the only witness, who spoke about insanity of the 1 st respondent before her marriage. Even if the 1 st respondent has turned a lunatic after her marriage, that may not be a ground for decree of nullity of the marriage under S.19(3) of the Indian Divorce Act. The learned judge also did not accept the contention taken by the petitioner that his consent for the marriage was obtained fraudulently by concealing the fact that the 1st respondent was a lunatic. 8. The above finding of the learned judge is under severe attack by the appellant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no justification on the part of the learned judge in totally discarding the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 5 in proving the fact of insanity of the 1st respondent at the time of marriage. The learned counsel took us through (he evidence of all the witnesses and contended that their evidence would clearly show that the 1 st respondent had been an insane person and that she had been undergoing treatment even before the marriage for mental illness. 9. What has to be established to get a decree for nullity under S.18 read with S.19(3) is that the 1st respondent was a lunatic at the time of her marriage not before and after. The burden is fully on the petitioner to prove that the 1st respondent was lunatic at the time of marriage. We will now refer to the evidence in this case and examine whether he has discharged the burden effectively. When examined as PW1 the petitioner stated that he had occasion to get acquainted with the 1 st respondent before marriage. In chief examination he has stated that at the time of marriage he noticed abnormality in the behaviour of the 1 st respondent as she was laughing loudly. When examined as PW1 the petitioner stated that he had occasion to get acquainted with the 1 st respondent before marriage. In chief examination he has stated that at the time of marriage he noticed abnormality in the behaviour of the 1 st respondent as she was laughing loudly. This version was changed in cross examination. The 1st night they spent in the house of the 1st respondent and they did not have any sexual intercourse on that day as the 1 st respondent was not well. Then he deposes as to what happened on subsequent days and ultimately how she was admitted in Ashirvad Hospital, Kannur. He further states that Dr. Sivaramakrishnan informed him that the mental illness of the 1st respondent cannot be fully cured, since the other members of the family of the 1st respondent are also suffering from the same disease. Even though it is not necessary for us to discuss in detail that portion of his evidence which relates to what happened after the marriage, it is relevant to note that he had not spoken in terms of all the allegation made in the petition regarding the behaviour of the 1st respondent immediately after marriage. 10. We will now refer to those portions of his evidence concerning his acquaintance with the 1st respondent before marriage. In cross examination, he admitted that even though on his first visit he spent only 5 minutes in the 1 st respondent's house, on his second visit he talked to her about her education, qualification, etc. She gave correct answers to those questions. At that time the 1st respondent and her parents alone were present in the house. The petitioner talked to the parents of the 1st respondent on that day. He admits that he did not find any abnormality in her behaviour. After that the 1 st respondent's parents and her sisters' husband came to his house. His young sister and her husband went to the 1st respondent's house. They also met the 1 st respondent and talked to her and did not find any abnormality in the behaviour of the 1st respondent. Betrothal was from the parish of the 1st respondent. After betrothal there was a feast in the house of the 1st respondent, in which about 30 persons from his side took part. In all the ceremonies on that day the 1 st respondent participated. Betrothal was from the parish of the 1st respondent. After betrothal there was a feast in the house of the 1st respondent, in which about 30 persons from his side took part. In all the ceremonies on that day the 1 st respondent participated. His sisters had also opportunity to talk to 1 st respondent. Nobody who participated in the betrothal ceremony told the petitioner about any abnormality of the 1 st respondent. In the cross examination he further admitted that "at the time of marriage I did not find any abnormality in the 1st respondent except that she was praying loudly". He further deposed that while returning to her house after marriage he talked to the 1 st respondent and he relied to all his questions. About one month after the marriage he realised that the 1 st respondent was suffering from mental illness. Two months thereafter he made enquiries and came to know that she was taking medicines for mental illness prior to the marriage. He states in his evidence that the 1st respondent's father informed the doctor that her elder brother and younger sister were suffering from mental illness. He has met the elder brother of the 1 st respondent once. He is married and living with his wife and children way from the parental house. He also knew that younger sister of the 1st respondent who was in a Nursing College and he could not deny the suggestion that the younger sister of the 1 st respondent is working as a Nurse in a Medical College in Karnataka State. He admits that he met the 1st respondent for the last time when they obtained medicine from Ashirwad Hospital in December 1995. He also admitted that the 1st respondent had passed SSLC and completed Pre-degree Course. 11 . The evidence of the petitioner would in no way prove the allegation that the 1 st respondent was a lunatic at the time of her marriage, on the other hand, his statement in the cross examination would clearly show that when he and members of his family ..met the 1 st respondent before marriage they did not find any abnormality in her, which would indicate mental illness. The petitioner would admit that the 1 st respondent was behaving in normal manner. The petitioner would admit that the 1 st respondent was behaving in normal manner. In cross examination he has further admitted that is only one month after the marriage he found that the 1st respondent was an insane person. Therefore, we find that the learned single judge was fully justified in taking the view that the evidence of the petitioner is of no help to prove his case that the 1 st respondent was a lunatic at the time of the marriage. 12. We will now refer to the evidence of PW2, the petitioner's sister. In chief examination she denied the claim of the 1 st respondent about the previous acquaintance. According to her, on enquiry she understood that the 1st respondent's family does not mingle with others and the 1 st respondent was not seen even by her neighbours. She further alleges that the 1 st respondent was not able to prepare food and she was feeling something wrong with her hands. On the day of the marriage when PW2 tried to get into the jeep the 1 st respondent prevented her and told her that there is no relationship between them and if she entered the house, 1st respondent's brothers will drive her away. On the 13th night the 1st respondent cried and her parents were informed about her illness. She tried to run away from the house in the night. In cross examination she admitted that she had attended the betrothal ceremony and had also attended the dinner in the house of the 1st respondent after betrothal. On that day she tried to talk to the 1st respondent, even though the 1st respondent did not talk to her. Others have talked. But nobody informed PW2 about any abnormality of the 1st respondent. She replied all questions put by the Priest from the Church. PW2 had spent about one hour in the house of the 1st respondent and she took food with the 1st respondent. When she attempted to talk to the 1st respondent she avoided her. But PW2 did not have any suspicion that the 1 st respondent was suffering from any mental illness. She enquired about the 1st respondent to the workers at Karalam and they informed her that the 1 st respondent does not talk much. She did not make any further enquiry. But PW2 did not have any suspicion that the 1 st respondent was suffering from any mental illness. She enquired about the 1st respondent to the workers at Karalam and they informed her that the 1 st respondent does not talk much. She did not make any further enquiry. After the betrothal the 1st respondent also went to Kannur for purchase of ornaments along with petitioner and another sister. They told PW2 that the 1st respondent did not make any selection of the ornaments and saree. But they did not mention that the 1st respondent was suffering from any mental illness. The marriage was 8 days after the purchase of ornaments. PW2 further states that she attended the marriage and the 1 st respondent participated in all ceremonies of the marriage. It was after the marriage PW2 talked to the 1 st respondent for the first time. She also stated that no adverse opinion was given about the 1st respondent by the sister of PW2 who had gone to see the 1st respondent before the marriage was fixed. The evidence of PW2 would clearly show that before the marriage the 1st respondent was behaving normally and nobody had occasion to suspect that the 1st respondent was a mentally ill person. 13. We will now consider the medical evidence in this case given by PWs. 3 and 4. two doctors. PW4, Dr. K. Sivaramakrishnan have a Master degree in Psychiatry. He was working in Ashirvad Hospital, Kannur. He stated in his chief examination that he has treated the 1st respondent for mental illness. Ext. X3 is the records of treatment. The 1 st respondent was brought to PW4 by her husband and her father on 17.10.1995. At the time of admission she was reported to have sleeping disturbances, howling occasionally, absent mindedness irrelevant talking and suspicious ideas. Ext. Al is the discharge certificate and Ext. A2 is the prescription given to the 1 st respondent. After discharge from the hospital the 1st respondent was brought to him on 25.10.1995,18-11-1995 and 18.12.1995 by her father. As per the records the treatment continued upto 18.1.1996. The diagnosis was acute psychotic episodes. Ext. Al is the discharge certificate and Ext. A2 is the prescription given to the 1 st respondent. After discharge from the hospital the 1st respondent was brought to him on 25.10.1995,18-11-1995 and 18.12.1995 by her father. As per the records the treatment continued upto 18.1.1996. The diagnosis was acute psychotic episodes. He further states that as long as this disease continues, a normal married life of a person is difficult and that if at the time of marriage the 1 st respondent was suffering from such illness she will not be in a position to give a valid consent for the marriage. But in cross examination the witness said that he cannot say whether the respondent was suffering from mental illness prior to the marriage or at the time of the marriage. In Ext. X3 he has recorded that her elder brother and younger sister were suffering from mental illness. He got this information as given by her father. At the time of discharge the respondent was apparently all right. By treatment the illness will be symptom free and can remit but he cannot assure that it will not recur. The illness can be controlled by treatment. The above would show that the evidence of PW4 is of no use for the petitioner to establish that the 1st respondent was insane prior to or at the time of marriage. 14. The evidence of PW3, Dr. Satheesh Rao of Fr. Muller's Hospital, Mangalore, is also to the same effect. He has stated only the condition of the 1 st respondent from 29.1.1996, 17.1.1997 to 7.2.1997. In cross examination he has stated mat as per the history given to him the illness started one month after the marriage. He has not received any information regarding the 1st respondent's illness prior to that date. In Ext. B1 he has certified that the 1st respondent will be capable of leading a normal life in future. The witness further states that her visit on 22.1.1998 was the last occasion on which he attended the 1st respondent. At that time her memory was normal. He had prescribed medicine for mental disorder. As mentioned earlier, the evidence of PW3 also would not throw any light of the stage of the mental condition of the 1 st respondent before or at the time of her marriage. 15. At that time her memory was normal. He had prescribed medicine for mental disorder. As mentioned earlier, the evidence of PW3 also would not throw any light of the stage of the mental condition of the 1 st respondent before or at the time of her marriage. 15. Now we will come to the evidence of PW5 on which much reliance was sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the appellant. In chief examination he has stated that he has got acquaintance with the 1 st respondent from 1995 onwards. He explained the occasion for such acquaintance. His nephew had fallen in love with the daughter of the elder sister of the respondent. In that connection he had gone to the house of the respondent. At that time the 1st respondent behaved in a very strange manner. She came forward and welcomed him by catching his hands and she was found laughing without any reason. Her parents took her away from the room forcibly and her father informed him that she was suffering from some mental illness. He admits that he is a neighbour of the petitioner. He was not aware that the petitioner was going to marry the 1st respondent. He did not attend the marriage in the church, even though he attended the function in the petitioner's house. According to him, the 1st respondent was mentally ill and she has undergone treatment after her marriage. He claims that he knows that brother, mother and younger sister of the 1 st respondent were suffering from mental illness. In cross-examination he admitted that he is a friend of the family of the petitioner for last many years. He had gone to the house of the 1st respondent 22 k.m. away from his house only once. According to him, the father of the girl with whom his nephew was in love informed the members of his family that the respondent, her mother, brother and younger sister were all suffering from mental illness. He admits that he does not know the name of the brother of the respondent who is alleged to be suffering from mental illness. He has no acquaintance with him. He does not know whether the respondent's brother is married and leading normal married life. He admits that he does not know the name of the brother of the respondent who is alleged to be suffering from mental illness. He has no acquaintance with him. He does not know whether the respondent's brother is married and leading normal married life. He claims that he knew that the mother of the respondent is suffering from mental illness, even though he has not talked to her. Such an assessment was made from her appearance. He has not met the younger sister of the respondent nor does he know that she was employed. The learned judge took the view that even if the evidence of PW5 is to be accepted, it will only go to show that the 1st respondent was suffering from mental aberration in the year 1994. It is not sufficient to prove that she was insane at the time of her marriage on 4.9.1995. The learned judge is perfectly correct in the above view. Apart from that on going through the evidence of PW5 we find it very difficult to believe his testimony. Admitted he had gone to the house of the 1st respondent only once and in cross-examination he has admitted that he has no acquaintance with the brother or sister of the 1 st respondent and he assumed that the mother of the respondent was insane from appearance. There is not. even a suggestion by any of the other witnesses including PW1 that a mere appearance of the 1 st respondent's mother would show that she is a mentally ill person. PW5 seems to be a person having not much reverence for truth. 15. In the nature of the evidence in this case the learned single judge was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has not satisfactorily proved that the 1st respondent was insane at the time of marriage so as to get a decree for nullity of marriage. He has also not successfully proved that his consent was obtained by-fraud. We therefore affirm the judgment of the learned single judge and dismiss the appeal. 16. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the appellant is a young person and that after 16 days of marital life he is living separate from the 1 st respondent. We therefore affirm the judgment of the learned single judge and dismiss the appeal. 16. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the appellant is a young person and that after 16 days of marital life he is living separate from the 1 st respondent. The learned counsel submits that it is unfair that the petitioner should be compelled to continue in this state when his wife is not able to lead a normal married life in view of her mental illness. It is true that under S.13(1)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 a decree for divorce can be obtained on the ground that the wife or the husband has been incurably of unsound mind for continuous period of not less than 3 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. In England under S.176 of the Judicature Act, adultery (and in the case of a wife petitioner rape, sodomy or bestiality by her husband) was the only ground for divorce. The section was repealed and reenacted with considerable extensions by Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937. Thereafter the ground for divorce under S.176 are: (1) adultery, (2) desertion, (3) cruelty, (4) unsoundness of mind and (5) in the case of a wife petitioner; rape, sodomy or bestiality; and under S.8, (6) presumption of death. Either spouse may petition for divorce on the ground that the respondent is incurably of unsound mind and has been continuously under care and treatment for at least 5 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. Even though such amendment had been brought in as early as in 1937, the grounds for divorce provided under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 still continuous in its original form. There is elaborate consideration of the provisions contained under the different enactments regarding ground for divorce in a Full Bench decision of this Court in Mary Sonia Zachariah v. Union of India, 1995 (1) KLT Page 644. In the above decision this Court took the view that in the provisions contained under S.10 words "incestuous" and "adultery coupled with" will be severed and removed and therefore, a Christian wife can also maintain a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery committed by her husband and also on the ground of cruelty without being coupled with adultery. Relying on this decision the learned counsel for the appellant contends that this Court may grant a decree for divorce to the appellant on the ground of insanity of the 1 st respondent. 17. We are unable to accept the above contention for two reasons. Firstly a Full Bench of this Court in George Sebastian v. Molly Joseph, 1994 (2) KLT 387, has taken the view that a court is not empowered to go outside the contours of the Divorce Act for granting a decree of divorce or a decree of nullity. The grounds enumerated and envisaged in S.19 are exhaustive for nullifying a marriage. By applying the above principle it may not be open for this Court to add a new ground under S.10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 18 69 for getting a decree for dissolution of marriage. In 1995 (1) KLT 644 this Court had not added a new ground for dissolution of marriage under S.10. Secondly the evidence in this case does not go to show that the 1st respondent is incurably of unsound mind. 18. There may be cases where one of the spouses becomes incurably unsound in mind which would have been sufficient for getting a decree for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act or other enactments. But as far as the Christians in Kerala are concerned, they are still governed by the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. Therefore, even in such cases of incurable mental illness of a spouse after the marriage no decree for dissolution of the marriage could be obtained. This anomaly can be cured only at the instance of the Legislature by bringing in appropriate amendments to the Statute.