ORDER
Srinivasan, J.
1. In the Original Petition which is filed for declaration of nullity of the marriage by the wife, it is stated by her that the first respondent who was married by her on 25.8.1985 was a lunatic at the time of marriage. She has impleaded the parents of the first respondent as respondents 2 and 3 in the original petition. All the three respondents remained ex parte.
2. The petitioner has given evidence as P.W. 1 she has spoken to the fact that ever since the marriage she noticed that the first respondent was taking medicines which will be normally taken by a lunatic. It is specifically stated by her that he was taking eskazine and pasipal which are medicines prescribed for psychiatric conditions. She has also deposed that his behaviour was not that of a normal person and he will be aggressive and violent at times and used to apologise when it subsides. He was not attending to the duty regularly. She took him to P.W. 2 who was professor of psychiatric Department in the C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore. He examined first respondent on 16.10.1986. P.W. 2 has stated that the first respondent was suffering from Schizophenia a form of mental disease. He has put him on medicine till 28.11.1986. Thereafter the first respondent did not go to P.W. 2. The original case records and copies were produced by P.W. 2 in court. Xerox copy is marked as Ex. A-16. The witness gave evidence referring to the original records. P.W. 2 has spoken to the fact that the drugs referred to by the wife are given for patients suffering from schizophrenia. Suddenly aggression and violent behaviour are the common symptoms on this kind of mental disorder. The behaviour at times will be abnormal. When a person suffers trum such mental disorder, if he is aggressive and violent, anybody nearby by will have to face the risk.
3. The petitioner has also produced A-3 medical treatment card issued by the Mental Health Centre, C.M.C. Vellore, and Ex. A-4 certificate issued by the P.W. 2 to the first respondent for schizophrenia. Ex. A-5 is a letter written by the father-second respondent to the petitioner. It is clear from the letter that the father was aware of the fact that the first respondent suffering from mental disorder. The letter also refers to the medicines eskazine and pasipal which are being taken by the first respondent in order to cool down his nerves. A reading of the letter would show that the illness must have been there for quite a long time prior to the letter. Significantly the letter was written on 11.10.1986 itself whereas the petitioner has taken her husband to P.W. 2 only on 16.10.1986.
4. A notice was issued on behalf of the petitioner under Ex. A-6, dated 13.12.1986. In the notice the relevant facts are set out, but the notice is returned unserved. Another notice was issued under Ex. A-11 on 6.1.1987 by the same Advocate. That notice was received by all the three respondents but there was no reply.
5. All the three respondents remained ex parte.
6. On the basis of the evidence available on record the District Judge, Coimbatore has granted a decree declaring the marriage to be nullity as prayed for by the petitioner.
7. It is to be noted that normally at least the parents of a person would be interested in contesting the claim that their son is a lunatic. In this case all the three respondents including the husband of the petitioner have remained ex parte and they have not chosen to contest the allegations made By the petitioner.
8. But this Court cannot ignore its duly to find out whether the first respondents was a lunatic or idiot at the time of marriage as required by Section 19(3) of the Indian Divorce Act. In Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, 24th Edition at Page S12, it is stated that the term ‘lunatic’ is an obsolete term for a mentally ill person. The term ‘lunancy’ is defined as follows:
(L. Luna, Moon) 1 Formerly a form of insanity characterized by alternating lucid and insane periods, believed to be influenced by phases of the moon.
2. Any form of insanity. 3 Insanity as defined variously by law.
9. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Law Lexicon, Reprint Edition 1993, we find the following statement as against the term lunacy at page 758:
Imbecility of mind, a weakness of mind between the limits of absolute idiocy on the one hand and of perfect capacity on this other. (Ingram Vs. Wyatt 1828) 1 Hag. E.R. at P. 401).
With references to the term Lunatic it is stated as follows:
A lucid interval is not necessity a complete restoration to mental vigour previously enjoyed (Ex parte, Holyland, (1805) II Ves. 10 : 8 R.R. 67 per Lord Eldon L.C.) nor is it merely the, cessation or suppression of the symptoms of insanity per Sir John Dodson, in Dyce Sombre v. Prinsep (1856) 1 Dearne at P. 110 “Lunatic defined (See also Criminal Lunatic: Person of Unsound Mind). Act 34 of 1858 Section 32 Act 25 of 1858 Section 23 Act 36 of 1858, Section 18 Act 27 of 1866, Section 2 Act 14 of 1912 Section 3”
Lunatic, in 8 and 9 vict, C. 100, Section 44, included “every person whose mind is so affected by disease that it is necessary for his own good to put him under restraint” R v. Bishop, (1880)5 Q.B.D. 259. This Section is now embodied in Section 315 of the Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 and 54 Vet. C.5).
10. In Pronab Kumar Ghosh v. Krishna Ghosh , a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court held:
Where the alleged disease is schizophrenia, whether it is curable or not does not save the case in which one of the parties of the marriage was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of marriage.
Referring to the word ‘lunatic’ found in Section 19(3) the bench said,
Before we enter into discussion of the evidence on record we may at the outset state that the entire case of the petitioner hinges on a single point that is to say whether Krishnan was lunatic at the time of her marriage. In order to establish this fact it has been urged by the petitioner that she was at that time suffering from Schizophrenia. It is undisputed that all Schizophrenin cases are lunatics. But the converse may not be the case, as all Lunatic persons do not suffer from Schizophrenia. The above observation of ours support from the evidence of Dr. J.C. Sarkar, P.W. 9.
In the text book of psychiatry by Handerson and Gillespies (Tenth Edition) at page 279, Schizophrenia has been described as an illness of as low, insidious on set developing over years The patient’s relatives may report strange, odd, inappropriate behaviour. One should find out always if there has been progressive deterioration in the level of performance at work and sicially (sic.) School reports, examination results at University or college and the employment records will provide objective and unusually reliable indicies of intellectual performance its maintenance of decline. Dr. A.K. Deb (D.W. 4) in his book ‘An outline of psychatry has dealt with this subject at P. 73 of that book. According to that doctor Schizophrenia usually starts about puperty and adolescence or shortly afterwards: this disorder usually appears in the teenagers or in early twenties. In the opinion of that author collateral inheritance. With a recessive character is frequently found in this disease, brothers and sisters being afflicted. While dealing with the symptoms Dr. Deb mentioned some of them, the patient sits or stands motionless in various attitudes; he has no spontaneous activity, he is mute and is highly resistive to all attention. In Handerson and Gilespie’s text book at P. 280 some of such symptoms have been mentioned. It has been observed that one or two questions may be sufficient to elicit the fact that the listless schizophrenic does not have any subjects feeling of sadness, but on the other hand, often feels contented prefers to be other hand, often feels contended and prefers to be left alone. Some of the medicines suggested in that text book at page 286 in as follows: E.C.T. is often of value in alleviating depressive symptoms and disrupting acute hallucinatory states. Tranquillizing drugs, in particular chlophromozine and trifluoperazine and useful in allaying turmoil and tension and in allowing the patient to become more accessible to other therapeutive influences. Dr. Deve. also in his book at page 84, suggested these medicines in such cases, the malady is very dangerous in nature. Doctors in such cases always advise patient not to marry and even if he marries, he is allowed to marry with the proviso that parenthood is inadivisable. The above subject has fully been dealt with at pages 50 and 283 by Handerson and Gillespie, already referred.
11. In the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, the expression ‘Lunatic’ was defined in Section 3(5) as meaning an idiot or person of unsound mind. The definition in very wide in its terms and will certainly include a schizophrenic. In the Mental Health Act, 1987 which replaced the Indian Lunacy Act 1912, the expression ‘lunatic’ is not used, but instead the expression ‘mentally ill person’ is used.
12 The evidence has made out that the first respondent was suffering from Schizoprenia at the time of marriage and continues to suffer from the same mental illness. In the facts and circumstances of the case we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has proved her case that the first respondent was a lunatic at the time of marriage as contemplated in Section 19(3) of the Indian Divorce Act, and consequently the decree declaring the marriage to be nullity is confirmed.