JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.411 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee is the revision petitioner. 2. The revision petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.411 of 2011 for annulment of marriage stating that the respondent is of unsound mind and also filed an application in I.A.No.131 of 2011 for appointment of a guardian for the respondent and that application was dismissed and as against the same, this revision is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the application filed for annulment was filed by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent is of unsound mind and she is a psychiatric patient and she is not capable of taking any decision and fraud has been played upon him and he was given to understand that the respondent was a woman of normal mind and his consent was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and therefore, the marriage has to be declared as null and void and as the respondent is of unsound mind, she has to be represented by guardian and for that purpose, the application was filed and without referring the respondent to medical expert to find out whether the respondent is of unsound mind or not, the court below dismissed the application on the basis of enquiry conducted by the court and came to the conclusion that the respondent is of sound mind and therefore, the order of the court below is liable to be set aside and the court below ought to have referred the respondent to the medical expert for medical examination and the court below ought to have come to the conclusion on the basis of the report of the qualified Doctor. 4. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. As per Order XXXII, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before adjudging any person as unsound mind, the court has to conduct enquiry and if the court comes to the conclusion that on the basis of the enquiry that such person by reason of mental infirmity is not capable of protecting her interest, can appoint a guardian for that person. Therefore, as per the above Rule, the court has to conduct enquiry to ascertain the mental capacity of a person who has to be adjudged as unsound mind and in this case, it is seen from the order passed by the court below that the court questioned the respondent about her employment and she answered that she is working as Teacher and she has also stated that she studied B.Sc. (Zoology) and she answered cogently to the questions about her employment and education to the court and according to the observation of the learned Judge, the respondent appears to be of normal understanding and therefore, rejected the application filed by the revision petitioner. Further, the respondent also appeared along with her parents and on being satisfied that the answers given and the behaviour of the respondent, the court below prima facie came to the conclusion that the respondent cannot be adjudged as unsound mind and dismissed the application. Therefore, the court below has complied with Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure by conducting enquiry and on being satisfied about the mental capacity of the respondent, dismissed the application. 5. According to me, it is not necessary that in all cases, before adjudging a person as unsound mind or sound mind, the person must be examined by an expert. Only when the court is not able to arrive at a conclusion on the basis of the enquiry conducted by it, the court can refer the party for examination by a medical expert and when the court is capable of coming to any conclusion on the basis of enquiry conducted by it about the mental capacity of the person, there is no need to refer the party to a medical expert for opinion. In this case, the court was satisfied about the mental capacity of the respondent and therefore, there is no need for the court to refer the respondent to medical expert. 6. Hence, I do not find any merit in this revision and it is dismissed. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.