ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The respondent-husband had filed a suit seeking a declaration of nullity of marriage under Section 19(3) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the appellant-wife on the ground that she was a lunatic at the time of marriage. Both the parties cited witnesses. As far as the respondent-husband is concerned he had called a Doctor (PW2) who claimed to have treated the petitioner before the date of her marriage. In addition, he also called his neighbour (PW4). The Trial Court, however, rejected the application of the respondent-husband holding that the evidence of the Doctor produced by the respondent was not credible. The learned Trial Judge found discrepancies and contradictions in the documentation said to have been maintained by the witness (namely, PW2) in coming to the conclusion that the PW2's evidence that the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia was unacceptable. On the other hand, the Trial Court relied upon the evidence of the wife's witness (RW2) who was a Psychiatrist by profession and who had not only examined the appellant but had also sent for her for further examination by getting a Psychometric test done. The report of the psychometric test was also produced by him. According to the evidence of RW2, there was no history of any lunacy in the appellant. The Trial Court also found that the incidents cited by the respondent-husband relating to the alleged abnormal behaviour of the appellant was not believable as they had not been referred to in the petition filed by him before the Eparchial Tribunal. It was also noted that there was no independent evidence in support of these incidents. The fourth incident which was alleged to have been taken place on 11th June, 1995, related to an allegation of the respondent husband that the appellant had run up to an electric post to mend a fuse. The Trial Court noted that PW4, had been a neighbour of the respondent since childhood. His evidence to the effect that the appellant had climbed up an electric post was found to be controverted by the evidence of the respondent himself who had not made any such statement either in his petition or orally. The Trial Court noted that PW4, had been a neighbour of the respondent since childhood. His evidence to the effect that the appellant had climbed up an electric post was found to be controverted by the evidence of the respondent himself who had not made any such statement either in his petition or orally. According to the Trial Court there was on the other hand evidence given by RW5, a doctor, to the effect that there was evidence that the appellant had been assaulted by the respondent quite seriously. The Trial Court found that there was no believable evidence of the alleged lunacy of the appellant and that the evidence produced by appellant that she was sane was more believable. Additionally, the Trial Court noted the demeanour of the appellant throughout the trial, that she behaved normally and that she was able to withstand cross-examination by the respondent and able to defend herself in the witness box and that there was nothing in her behaviour to show that she had any mental complaint. It was held that in the circumstances there was no question of the appellant having played any fraud on the respondent prior to the marriage by suppressing her alleged lunacy. 3. The High Court reversed the finding of the Trial Court. Although the High Court noted the evidence of the Civil Surgeon (RW5) who stated that the appellant had been assaulted, he did not discuss it further. As far as the evidence of RW2 the Psychiatrist, was concerned his evidence was also not discussed. The High Court in a very brief judgment accepted the alleged incident of the appellant climbing the electric post and appears to have accepted the evidence of PW4 wholly without noting the criticism of the same by the trial Court. The High Court was also of the view that PW2's evidence was sufficient to prove the fact that the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and was of the view that his evidence had been rejected by the Trial Court only on technical grounds. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the High Court had entirely erred in not considering the evidence of RW2. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the High Court had entirely erred in not considering the evidence of RW2. Nor did the High Court consider the fact that Section 19(3) could be invoked only if the party approaching the court was able to establish lunacy which was a mental disorder of much higher degree than the mental disorder which is required under the Hindu Marriage Act. It is further urged that the consequences of declaring a person a lunatic would not only have social but also have constitutional and contractual repercussions. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Ram Narain Gupta v. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta, 1988(4) SCC 247 , to contend that the standard of proof required to establish such mental disorder as would justify annulment of a marriage under Section 19(3) of the Act was of a very high order. Reliance has also been placed on two decisions of the Kerala High Court to the effect that even assuming there was some mental problem or psychological problem, that would not be sufficient to sustain a prayer for annulment of marriage under Section 19(3). 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has on the other hand submitted that the High Court had correctly rejected the evidence of RW2 as he had examined the appellant only after the evidence was closed for one day whereas PW2 who had been cited by the husband had examined the wife before the marriage and continued to treat her after marriage and had seen her on a number of occasions. It was also said that admittedly the appellant had taken the medicines prescribed by the PW2 and all the medicines so prescribed were medicines which pertained to a mental disorder. It is also said that even today the appellant was not mentally normal. Our attention was drawn particularly to the appellant's evidence before the Trial Court where she has said that she did not mind being examined by a Psychiatrist. It is submitted in view of the dispute between the parties, the appellant should be directed to be examined by a Psychiatrist who will be able to depose competently as to the appellant's mental condition. 6. It is submitted in view of the dispute between the parties, the appellant should be directed to be examined by a Psychiatrist who will be able to depose competently as to the appellant's mental condition. 6. Having considered the various submissions of the parties, as well as the evidence and the reasoning of the two courts below, we are of the view that the decision of the High Court cannot be sustained. The High Court has not addressed itself to the fact that lunacy is not mere mental disorder but something much more serious. This court in the decision of Ram Narain Gupta (supra) has found paranoid schizophrenia with which the wife is alleged to be afflicted as a : "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 paranoid 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 a crude wrench from reality and brings about a lowering of the higher mental functions. "26. "Schizophrenia" is described thus : A severe mental disorder (or group of disorders) characterised 'by a disintegration of the process of thinking, of contract with reality, and of emotional responsiveness. Delusions and hallucinations (especially of voices) are usual features, and the patient usually feels that his thoughts, sensations, and actions are controlled by, or shared with, others. He becomes socially withdrawn and loses energy and initiative. The main types of schizophrenia are simple, in which increasing social withdrawal and personal ineffectiveness are the major changes; hebephrenic, which starts in adolescence or young adulthood (see hebephrenia); paranoid, characterised by prominent delusion; and catatonic, with marked motor disturbances (see catatonia), Schizophrenia commonly - but not inevitably-runs a progressive course. The prognosis has been improved in recent years with drugs such as phenothiazines and by vigorous psychological and social management and rehabilitation. There are strong genetic factors in the causation, and environmental stress can precipitate illness." 7. It certainly cannot be said that the evidence on record anywhere comes near establishing the aforesaid factors. 8. The prognosis has been improved in recent years with drugs such as phenothiazines and by vigorous psychological and social management and rehabilitation. There are strong genetic factors in the causation, and environmental stress can precipitate illness." 7. It certainly cannot be said that the evidence on record anywhere comes near establishing the aforesaid factors. 8. The High Court in our view erred in relying on the evidence of PW4 who was not only an interested witness but gave evidence which did not match the testimony of the respondent. The High Court also dealt with the objections of the Family Court to the evidence of PW2 in too casual manner and erred in not appreciating the consequences of a difference of ink in the prescriptions filed by the PW2 in support of his allegations. The High Court has also not at all considered the evidence of RW2 which appears to us to be consistent and credible. That he was a specialist in the field and more qualified than PW2 is admitted. Merely because he examined the appellant during the pendency of the trial does not detract from his opinion as to the appellant's past and present sanity. The mere fact that he had also asked for a psychometric test to be done on the appellant does not mean that his view was uncertain. He wanted a pathological confirmation of his views by having her undergo the test. The test result clearly showed that the appellant was same and did not have a history of insanity. The document was exhibited and unassailed. There is no question of subjecting the appellant to another psychiatric test. In the circumstances of the case we are of the view that the decision of the High Court cannot be sustained. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The decision of the High Court is set aside and the decision of the Family Court upheld. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.