Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 277 (MP)

Smt. Jayanti Bai v. Gore Lal

2000-03-16

V.K.AGARWAL

body2000
JUDGMENT V.K. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1998 passed in Civil Suit No. 6-A/98 by Addl. District Judge, Sagar whereby the application of the respondent-husband under Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been allowed and marriage of the parties has been annulled. 2. Undisputedly, the parties were married on 24.3.1998 at village Majiya Patna, Tehsil Deori, District Sagar. The respondent/petitioner filed an application under Section 12(1)(b) and Section 12(2) of the Act for annulment of the marriage on the ground that the appellant suffered from insanity before the marriage. The learned Trial Court, however, did not frame any issue as to whether at the time of marriage the present appellant/wife had been subjected to recurrent attacks of insanity and epilepsy. An issue was framed as to whether the above fact of insanity was suppressed by the appellant/wife at the time of her marriage. The issue was found in the affirmative though no medical evidence was adduced by either of the parties regarding the insanity of the appellant-wife. 3. An application under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. has been filed in this appeal on behalf of the respondent/husband praying that additional evidence may be permitted to be adduced regarding the insanity of the appellant/wife. It has been submitted in the above connection that the documents of treatment of the appellant could not be produced before the Trial Court and that he wishes to place them on record and duly prove them. It has been submitted that the documents are in possession of the appellant/wife. He wants to get them discovered from her or in the alternative he would obtain the same from the medical records of the appellant from the hospital where she was treated. It has also been submitted that the respondent/husband would examine the medical expert to prove the mental insanity of the appellant at the time of her marriage. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he would be required to rebut the evidence, if any, as may be led by the respondents as has been prayed in his application. 5. It has also been submitted that the respondent/husband would examine the medical expert to prove the mental insanity of the appellant at the time of her marriage. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he would be required to rebut the evidence, if any, as may be led by the respondents as has been prayed in his application. 5. It is clear that the marriage under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act can be annulled ) on the finding that the wife suffered from recurrent attacks of insanity or epilepsy at the time of marriage. The fact could be duly proved possibly by expert's evidence. That evidence is not on record. The issue framed by the Trial Court is not happily worded. In order to adjudicate the controversy as above finally, it appears necessary to permit the parties to raise additional pleadings and to adduce evidence oral as well as documentary in support of their contentions. It, therefore, appears that the case deserves enquiry and trial again. 6. The impugned judgment and decree dated 24.12.1998 is, therefore, set aside, and the case is remanded for trial afresh. The parties will also be permitted to amend their pleadings suitably in case they choose to do. The Trial Court may re-draft the issues framed in the case. The respondent/husband shall be at liberty to file such documents in support of his case as he may be advised. The appellant/ wife shall also have the right to place such documents on record in rebuttal as she may choose to do. The parties will also be permitted to lead oral evidence. 7. As prayed by the learned Counsel for the appellant/wife, it is directed that the respondent/husband shall be obliged to pay Rs. 300/- per month to the appellant/wife pendente lite for her maintenance as has already been directed by the Trial Court. In the circumstances, the cost of this appeal shall be borne by the parties as incurred.