Madras High Court
Usha Margilada vs J.Henry Suresh David on 16 October, 2024
C.M.A.(MD)No.145 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 16.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A(MD)No.145 of 2010
Usha Margilada ... Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
J.Henry Suresh David .. Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 55 of
Indian Divorce Act 4 of 1869 against the judgment and decree dated
02.07.2009 made in I.D.O.P.No.100 of 1987 on the file of the District
Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.
For Appellant : Mr.Thiagarajan
(Reported no instructions)
For Respondent : Mr.K.N.Thambi
JUDGMENT
The above appeal has been filed challenging the order of the trial
court in declaring the marriage between the appellant and the respondent
as null and void.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The appeal arises under the following circumstances:
i)The respondent herein filed a petition to declare the marriage as a
nullity on the ground that the appellant had suppressed the fact that she
was suffering from mental illness; that the respondent was not allowed to
talk to the appellant prior to the marriage; that the marriage took place on
19.06.1985; that the respondent left for Libya on 14.07.1985 as he was
employed there; that though he had noted certain abnormal behavior of
the appellant, he could not take a decision and only after the appellant
came to Libya he came to know of the fact that the appellant was
suffering from Schizophrenia; that the appellant behaved abnormally;
that she used to put her hand in heated oil; that she abused the respondent
in filthy words; that while the respondent brought the appellant to India,
she beat the respondent in the presence of strangers; that there are
medical reports to show that the appellant suffered from a very serious
mental illness and was not capable of conjugal relationship.
ii) The appellant herein filed a counter stating that the averments in
the petition were false and invented for declaring the marriage as null
and void; that though she was treated by Dr. Surendran, the illness is not
of such a nature that would render the marriage a nullity; and that it was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the respondent who committed cruelty on the appellant and prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
iii) Before the trial court, the respondent examined P.W.1 to P.W.5
and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.19. The appellant examined R.W.1 and
marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.8. The trial court, after considering the oral and
documentary evidence, held that the respondent established that the
appellant suffered from mental illness, which was not disclosed to the
respondent and declared the marriage null and void.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant reported no instructions
from the appellant and expressed his inability to make his submissions;
and that she came to know from the lower court counsel that the
appellant is no more. He also submitted that this fact could not be
verified. This Court had directed the Registry to send notice of hearing to
the appellant, which could not be served.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent per contra submitted that
the judgment of the trial court declaring the marriage as null and void is
based on the evidence on record and there is no infirmity in the said
finding.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Though the learned counsel on instructions would submit that
there is every chance that the appellant is no more, the said fact could not
be ascertained. Since the case is of the year 2010, this Court proposes to
decide the case on merits, on the basis of the records and the submissions
of the learned counsel for the respondent, as further delay in disposal of
the case would not be in the interest of the parties.
6. The point for consideration in the instant appeal is as follows:
Whether the respondent is entitled to a declaration that the
marriage between the appellant and the respondent is null and void.
7. As stated earlier, the respondent had examined five witnesses.
The Doctor, P.W.5, who treated the appellant had given a report, which is
marked as Ex.A.8. In the said report, the Doctor had opined that the
appellant was not in a sound state of mind and that she suffered from
'Schizophrenia'. P.W.5 in his deposition reiterated the contents of the
report given by him. According to P.W.5, the appellant suffered from a
serious mental illness in the past. That apart, it is seen from Ex.A.4
(Admission registers) that the appellant was admitted in the psychiatric
ward in Ramakrishna Hospital at Trivandram before marriage. Ex.A.5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and Ex.A.6 are the copies of the admission registers evidencing that the
appellant was admitted in the said hospital even thereafter. Though those
documents were disputed by the appellant, it is seen from the cross-
examination of the appellant that she had admitted that in those
documents, the patient's name is mentioned as 'Usha' and her father's
name also had been referred. Further, the respondent had also marked the
letters written by the brother of the appellant Ex.A.11 and Ex.A.12 in
which he had admitted that her sister was taking treatment for mental
illness. Hence, this Court is of the view that the respondent had
established that the appellant suffered from a mental illness. The
evidence adduced on the side of the appellant and on the side of the
respondent has been discussed in detail by the trial court. On a re-
appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the
respondent has established that the appellant suffered from mental illness
and therefore, she was incapable of any conjugal relationship and this
fact was suppressed to the respondent.
8. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the judgment of the
trial court. The point for consideration is answered accordingly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
16.10.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
CM
To
1. The District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
CM
Judgment made in
16.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
