All Charges to be Substantiated

BN Panduranga Shet vs. SN Vijaylaxmi

Filed under: Section 13(1) (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appellant: BN Panduranga Shet
Respondent: SN Vijayalaxmi
Citation: 2003(3) Kar.L.J (DB)
Court: In the High Court of Karnataka
Judges: AM Farroq and DV Shylendra Kumar

This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Civil Judge at Mysore dismissing the petition for dissolution of marriage.

Facts

BN Panduranga Shet and Vijayalakshmi were married in 1991 according to Hindu customs and rituals. In the petition, Panduranga stated that after 15 days of marriage, Vijayalakshmi's behaviour turned abnormal and violent. He also said that she was not interested in her matrimonial duties and ill-treated him and his family members.

The petition also started that Vijayalakshmi conceived after four months of marriage and in due course of time a daughter was born with 'mental abnormalities'. Panduranga reported that her behaviour was abnormal during the course of the pregnancy and also after the birth of the child.

Thereafter, Vijayalakshmi conceived for the second time and went to her parents' home for the delivery. Meanwhile, the first daughter died.

After the second child was born Vijayalakshmi returned to her husband in Mysore. Further, on her request, Panduranga shifted to a separate house where her behaviour, as described turned from bad to worse.

At about this time, Panduranga consulted a psychiatrist in Mysore who opined that Vijayalakshmi was suffering from schizophrenia that would require lifelong treatment.

When questioned, Vijayalakmi denied that she had or was suffering from any mental disorder or that she had ill-treated her husband or the members of his family.

She claimed that they shared a normal marital life evident from her conception and pregnancy history. She also denied the allegation that the first daughter had died as a result of her (Vijayalakshmi's) mental disorder.

She stated that there was nothing wrong with her behaviour that their families were closely related to each other, and that Panduranga knew her before their marriage.

She claimed that her husband's family was prejudiced against her for not having borne a male child and that she was forcibly taken to a nursing during her third pregnancy for termination - an incident that caused great mental shock and anguish.

Thereafter, Panduranga took her to her parents' home and left her there and got a legal notice issued seeking her consent for a divorce.

After examining the evidence of husband and other witnesses, the Trial Court proclaimed that Panduranga had failed to prove that his wife had treated him with cruelty or to establish that she was suffering from a mental disorder. The petition was thus dismissed. Panduranga then went on to appeal to the High Court.

Observations of the Court

The Court informed of the necessity to establish that the mental disorder was of such an extent as to make it impossible to live together, in order to avail of the benefit of this section of the act.

The court observed in this connection that though Panduranga had stated that his wife was behaving abnormally after 15 days of marriage, he had taken her to the doctor only after 4 years.

The Court held that under the circumstances it was difficult to believe that the 'abnormal behaviour' was of such intensity as to make it impossible for them to live together.

Held: For the above reason, the petition was dismissed

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • Ram Narain Gupta v. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta, AIR 1988 SC 2260 : (1988)4 SCC 247 : All. L.J. 483

Top

Nirmala Manohar Jagesha vs. Manohar Shivram Jagesha

Filed Under: Hindu Marriage Act Sections 13(1) (ia) and (1) (iii)
Appellant: Smt. Nirmala Manohar Jagesha
Respondent: Manohar Shivram Jagesha
Citation: AIR 1991 BOMBAY 259
Court: In the High Court of Bombay
Judge: AV Savant

Facts

Nirmala and Manohar Shivram Jagesha had been married at Nasik in accordance with the Hindu marriage rites. Manohar was a lawyer practicing at Nasik while Nirmala was an Arts Graduate from Delhi. After the wedding Nirmala had stayed with Manohar for only 40 days, after which Nirmala left her matrimonial home and went to live with Dr. Badlani who was a common friend.

After staying with him for 5 days she left for Delhi. About two months later, Nirmala went back to Nasik with her father-in-law. During this time she stayed with her husband and his family only for a period of 10 days after which she left for Delhi.

During her stay this time, her mother-in-law wrote a letter to Nirmala's brother Baldev, complaining that Nirmala could not perform any household work. Three months later, Nirmala's father-in-law wrote another letter to Baldev, in which he mentioned Nirmala's indifferent and defiant mood and also the threats that she had given to her mother in-law.

Despite these complaints, Nirmala's father-in-law expressed hope that Nirmala would come back to Nasik. A few months later, her father-in-law wrote another letter to Nirmala's father complaining about Nirmala's peculiar behavior. He referred to this as indicating that she was mentally unbalanced.

The letter also stated some specific instances, such as getting up late at night and brushing her teeth, opening doors, sitting on the floor of the bedroom. He further added that neighbors or visitors had witnessed this behavior.

At the end of this letter Nirmala's father-in-law contended that if Nirmala was not sent back to Nasik within a period of 7 days, legal proceedings against her would be initiated.

Therafter, Manohar wrote a letter directly to Nirmala requesting her to come back. He also referred to the abuses Nirmala's mother had hurled at him and his mother. He claimed that it was for this reason he would rather not come to Delhi to get her back.

Manohar also sent a telegram to Nirmala stating that he was seriously ill and wanted her to come to Nasik immediately. In response to this telegram, Nirmala went to Nasik but after staying with Manohar for about 10 to 15 minutes she went to stay with Dr. Badlani and then on the same day she returned to Delhi.

On the basis of the above facts, Manohar filed a petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty, desertion and mental disorder. In the petition, Manohar also stated that Nirmala was sexually cold and unresponsive. He also claimed that Nirmala's mother had abused his mother and had also insisted that he and Nirmala should live separately from his parents.

The subsequent proceedings under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code by the Delhi Court granted maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to Nirmala. In reply to the charges made by Manohar, Nirmala filed a written reply in which she denied the allegations of erratic behavior and mental deficiency.

She further contended that she was being harassed for the demand of dowry of Rs. 5000/-. She also denied that she did not know cooking and that she was of subnormal intelligence.

Further, she also denied allegations of her being sexually unresponsive and claimed that it was Manohar who was unable to consummate the marriage. She also denied the alleged disputes and quarrels.

Observations of the Court

The Court proceeded to analyze the relevant points in order to come to his judgment. He specifically dealt with the following issues:
  1. Had Nirmala in fact treated Manohar cruelly?
  2. Could it be proved that Nirmala was suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind that Manohar could not reasonably be expected to live with her?
  3. Finally, could Manohar be granted decree for divorce on grounds of cruelty of the allegations made by Nirmala about his impotency?

With regards to the first point, the Court referred to several previous and relevant cases and opined that on the basis of the evidence provided by Manohar it could not be concluded that Nirmala had treated him cruelly.

For the second point, the Court reviewed relevant sections and previous cases and concluded that Manohar's contention of Nirmala suffering continuously or intermittently could not be accepted.

Finally, for the last and the final point, the Court again made references to many relevant previous cases and opined that Nirmala had made wild, reckless and baseless allegations in the written statement against Manohar.

According to the Court, Nirmala had not attempted to either put her husband or herself under cross-examination. She had not tried to support the allegations she had made in written about her husband's impotence.

On the basis of this point the Court granted decree for divorce to Manohar on grounds of cruelty. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • Ram Narain vs. Rameshwari: AIR 1988 SC 2260
  • Gangadharan vs. T. K. Thankan: AIR 1988 Keraia 244
  • AIR 1987 Delhi 52
  • Ashok Sharma vs. Smt. Santosh Sharma: AIR 1987 Delhi 63
  • Smt. Shanti Devi vs. Raghav Prakash: AIR 1986 Rajasthan 13
  • Smt. Krishna Sarbadhikary vs. Alok Ranjan Sarbhadhikary: AIR 1985 Calcutta 431
  • Kamini Gupta vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta: AIR 1985 Delhi 221
  • Dr. Keshaorao Krishnaji Londhe vs. Mrs. Nisha Londhe: AIR 1984 Bombay 413
  • Smt. Savitri Balchandani vs. Mulchand Balchandani: AIR 1982 Allahabad 52
  • Kiran Kapur vs. Surinder Kumar, 1982 Rajdhani LR (Note) 37 at P. 36
  • Lajwanti Chandhok vs. O. N. Chandhok: AIR 1982 NOC 111
  • Shakuntala Kumari vs. Om Prakash: AIR 1981 Delhi 53
  • Smt. Sumanbai vs. Anandrao: AIR 1976 Bombay 212
  • Dr. N G Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastane: AIR 1975 SC 1534
  • Trimbak Narayan Bhagwat vs. Smt. Kumudini Trimbak Bhagwat: AIR 1967 Bombay 80
  • Iqbal Kaur vs. Pritam Singh: AIR 1963 Punjab 242
  • Villiams vs. Villiams (1963) 2 All ER 994: (1963) 3 WLR 215
  • Gollins vs. Gollins (1963) 2 All ER 966: 1964 AC 644: (1963) WLR 176
  • Kaslefsky vs. Kaslefsky (1950) 2 All ER 398: 66 TLR (Pt 2) 616
  • Russell vs. Russell 1897 AC 395: 77 LT 249: 13 TLR 516
  • Sharda Nand Sharma v. Kiran Sharma, (1985) 28 Delhi LT (SN) 32
  • Girdhari Lal vs. Santosh Kumari, (1982) 1 DMC 180
  • Jorden Dienadoh vs. S. S. Chopra, (1982) 1 DMC 224: AIR 1983 NOC 313
  • Sadan Singh vs. Resham, AIR 1982 Allahabad 52

Top

Sudhir Singhal vs. Neeta Singhal

Sudhir Singhal filed a petition seeking dissolution of his marriage on grounds of cruelty and mental disorder.

Facts

Sudhir and Neeta Singhal were married at Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. They were both divorcees at the time of the marriage. However, neither had a child either from the present marriage or from their previous marriages.

After the marriage, the couple lived in Chandausi. After about 6 years, Sudhir filed a petition for divorce in the Court of Civil Judge, Moradabad, UP. He claimed that Neeta was abusive, used filthy language and was insulting. The case was then transferred to the Court at Delhi.

Neeta filed a written statement in which she contended that she had never behaved in the manner stated by her husband. She further took the defense claiming that Sudhir was an alcoholic and because of this habit she had not been able to conceive.

She further added that Sudhir had treated her in a very cruel manner right from the first night. In the Sessions Court two main issues were taken up:

  1. Whether Neeta had been of an unsound mind of such a kind that Sudhir could not reasonably expected to live with her?
  2. Was Neeta guilty of treating Sudhir with mental cruelty as claimed by him?

At the Sessions Court, both the parties presented oral and documentary evidence. It was claimed by Sudhir that Neeta had hurled filthy abuses on him and his mother. It was further contended that Neeta had decided to leave her matrimonial home with the intention of never coming back.

In reference to this it was pointed out that she had collected all articles including jewelry, bedding, clothes etc. A list was also submitted of these items. Apart from this, Sudhir's lawyer also submitted a certificate that had been issued to Neeta by a psychiatrist. It had been claimed in the certificate that Neeta had been suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Neurosis and was therefore mentally unsound.

In response to these allegations, Neeta contended that during the first 6 years of marriage, there had been no allegations against her for using foul language against Sudhir and his mother. Also during this period it had never been stated that Neeta was suffering from a mental disorder.

It was further pointed out that the list of the articles taken had in fact been thrust on Neeta. The lawyer also claimed that Sudhir's weakness for alcohol was at the root of all the problems. After analyzing the relevant evidence, the Sessions Judge dismissed the petition. Sudhir was not satisfied with the judgment and filed the present appeal.

Observations of the Court

The Court made reference to relevant previous cases and Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. After this, the Court proceeded to analyze the evidence on the question of mental disorder and on the question of cruelty.

The Court observed that Sudhir, in his petition had extended the evidence given by the doctor who had examined Neeta. The doctor stated that Sudhir had brought Neeta to him for treatment. The date mentioned by the doctor was later modified by him.

On diagnosing her, he had found her to be suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Neurosis. He also maintained that Neeta had been suffering from this disorder previously as well and he had seen the prescriptions of the previous doctors.

He also stated that his treatment had not shown much improvement in Neeta's condition. The doctor had also submitted a photostat copy of the prescription slip. However, when the doctor was cross-examined he said that he did not maintain any records of his patients except that of entries in his appointment diary.

After taking into account this aspect of evidence, the Court pointed out that nothing was stated or proved by the doctor that indicated the nature and length of the treatment that the doctor had prescribed for Neeta. Even though the doctor had stated that he had seen the prescriptions given by previous doctors, no such prescription had been placed on record.

Furthermore, the Court also examined the certificate that had been issued by the doctor. The Court observed that the Doctor had claimed that he did not maintain any records of his patients.

And yet, after two years he remembered Neeta's case and had issued a certificate. Not a single prescription had been put on the record and nor had the doctor stated the line of treatment prescribed by him.

On the basis of these aspects, the Court stated that evidence presented to the Court was not sufficient to support the case that Neeta Singhal had indeed been suffering from a mental disorder of such a degree that Sudhir could not live with her.

After examining the relevant evidence, the Court also stated that Sudhir had not been able to establish the claims of mental cruelty against Neeta. Thus, the Court also rejected the plea of mental cruelty made by Sudhir. Accordingly the Court held that Sudhir Singhal had failed to make a ground for dissolution of his marriage. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • Gauri Shankar Chakravarty vs. Smt. Basana Roy, AIR 1999 Gauhati 48
  • Anil Kumar vs. Sunita, (1998) 1 DMC 345: (1997) 3 Guj LR 2264
  • Rajana Saxena vs. Prabhash Saxena, (1997), 68 DLT 397: (1997) 2 DMC 317
  • Usha Gupta vs. Santosh Kumar Pahadiya, (1996) 1 DMC 90: 1996 MPLJ 42
  • Ram Prakash vs. Smt. Vijay Kumar, (1995) 2 DMC 71: (1995) 2 Shim LC 38 (Him Pra)
  • V. Bhagat vs. (Mrs.) D. Bhagat, AIR 1994 SC 710: (1994) 1 SCC 337: 1994 AIR SCW 45
  • Smt. Nitu vs. Kishan Lal, AIR 1990 Delhi 1
  • Ram Narain Gupta vs. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta, AIR 1989 SC 2260
  • Sh. Ashok Sharma vs. Smt. Santosh Sharma, AIR 1987 Delhi 63
  • Smt. Kamini Gupta vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, AIR 1985 Delhi 221
  • A.E.G. Carapiet vs. A.Y. Derderian, AIR 1961 Cal 359

Top

Sharda vs. Dharampal

Sharda filed an appeal against the order of the High Court of Rajasthan allowing Dharmpal's request for medical examination to prove unsoundness of mind.

Facts

Sharda and Dharampal were married according to the Hindu rites. After about four years of marriage, Dharampal filed a petition for divorce on grounds of unsoundness of mind of his spouse. He also filed an application seeking permission to get Sharda medically examined to assess her mental status.

Sharda objected to this on the ground that the court had no authority to pass such directions. Nonetheless she had to submit herself to the medical examination. Against the said order, she filed a Revision before the High Court which was also dismissed. Therefore, she approached the Supreme Court.

Arguments on behalf of Sharda

Two main points were made in support of her appeal - Firstly, compelling a person to undergo medical examination by an order of the court is in violation of Art.21 of the Constitution of India (Right to personal liberty) Secondly, in the absence of specific empowering provisions, a court dealing with matrimonial cases is not authorized to order a medical examination.

Arguments on behalf of Dharampal

These, two points were countered on behalf of Dharampal by stating that
  1. a Family Court was essential to understand whether Sharda was suffering from 'unsoundness of mind', a mental disorder and it was thus essential that the Court should be entitled to taking expert opinion.
  2. that this medical examination would not infringe on the right to personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

Observations of the Court

The Court noted that for the purpose of grant of divorce on grounds of unsoundness of mind, it was necessary to establish that the situation was grave enough to warrant a breaking of the marriage (refer to quotes). The Court further observed that a disorder of thought, behaviour and mind leading to unsoundness of mind could be a major cause for filing for divorce.

The Court also noted that it was important take a doctor's opinion about the state of mind before granting the divorce (refer to quotes). The court explained that a medical examination by the experts would lead to the truth of the matter and also help remove misunderstandings between the parties.

In may need to be remembered that in cases of matrimonial disputes, the Court also plays a conciliatory role for which this information may prove beneficial.

Thus, it would be incorrect to contend that the Court has no power at all. Regarding the point about "violation of rights of personal liberty", the court explained that its concern was to investigate whether the person said to be mentally ill was in a position to defend himself.

The explanation continued to describe the difference between any medical test and a test carried out by a psychiatrist. In addition, the necessity for treatment would only be decided after the examination and diagnosis of a properly qualified psychiatrist.

Over and above all this, the court pointed out that it to be satisfied whether the person required adequate protection by way of legal aid to ensure that there was no injustice committed especially since the person was unable to understand the proceedings.

After outlining the law relating to right to privacy in India, the Court observed that it was relevant in the context to notice that certain laws had been enacted by the Parliament where 'the accused' could be subjected to certain medical examinations.

In all such cases where divorce was sought on issues like impotency, unsoundness of mind etc, medical examination was necessary to arrive at a conclusion whether the allegation made was correct or not.

Thus, to confuse the issue of violation of right to privacy, or right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India then it would not be possible to arrive at the required conclusion. Summing up, the Court held that -

  1. A Matrimonial Court has the power to order a person to undergo medical test.
  2. Passing of such an order would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
  3. The Court should exercise such a power if the applicant has a strong case and if there was sufficient material before the Court. If despite the order of the Court, the respondent refused to submit to this medical examination, and then the court would be entitled to draw an adverse inference.

Held: The Court opined that High Court cannot be said to have erred in the passing of the judgment and dismissed the appeal.

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • Goutam Kundu vs. State of WB, AIR 1993 SC 2295: (1993) AIR SCW 2325: 1993 Cri LJ 3233
  • Bipinchandra Shantilal Bhatt v. Madhuriben, AIR 1963 Guj 250
  • Smt. Revamma vs. Shri Shanthappa, AIR 1972 Mysore 157
  • Shanti Devi vs. Ram Nath, AIR 1972 P & H 270
  • M. Venkatachallapati v. Aroja, AIR 1981 Madras 349
  • PA Anbu Anandari vs. Sivakumari, AIR 1999 Madras 232
  • Smt Ningamma vs. Chikkaiah & another, AIR 2000 Kar 50
  • G Venkatanarayan vs. Kurupati Laxmi Devi, AIR 1985 AP 1
  • Birendra Kumar Biswas vs. Hemlata Biswas, AIR 1921 Cal 459
  • George Swamidoss Joseph vs. Miss Sundari Edward, 1954 67 Mad LW 676
  • AS Mohammad Ibrahim Ummal vs. Shaik Mohammad Marakayar & another, AIR 1949 Mad 292
  • Ram Narain Gupta v. Rameshwari, AIR 1988 SC 2260
  • MP Sharma vs. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 297
  • Kharak Singh vs. State of UP, AIR 1963 SC 1295
  • R Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu & others, AIR 1995 SC 264
  • People's Union of Civil Liberties vs. Union of India, 1997 1 SSC 301
  • Govind vs. State of MP &another, AIR 1975 SC 1378
  • Mr. 'X' vs. Hospital 'Z', 1998 8 SCC 296
  • Mr. 'X' vs. Hospital 'Z', 2003 1 SCC 500
  • M. Vijaya vs. Chairman, Singareni Collieries, AIR 2001 Andh Pra 502
  • St. Georges Health Care N.H.S Trust vs. S. Regina v. Collins Ex. Parte S. 1998 3 WLR 936
  • In re M.B. An Adult Medical Treatment, 1997 2 FCR 541
  • Costello Roberts vs. United Kingdom, 1955 19 EHRR 112
  • Zurigh vs. Pierce (1983) 714 F 2nd 632
  • M. Venkatachallapati vs. N. Saroja, AIR 1981 Madras 349
  • State (Delhi Administration) vs. Gulzarilal Tandon, AIR 1979 SC 1382
  • S vs. S and W. vs. Official Liquidator, (1972) AC 24: 1970 3 All ER 107
  • B.R.B. vs. J.B. (1968) 2 All ER 1023: 1968 3 WLR 566
  • W. vs. W. (1963) 2 Al ER 841: (1963) 3 WLR 540
  • State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808
  • P Sreeramamurthy vs. Lakshmikanthan, AIR 1955 Andh Pra 207
  • Mr. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300
  • George Swamidass Joseph vs. Ms. Sundari Edward (1954) 67 Mad LW 676
  • Birendra KumarBiswas vs. Hemlata Biswas, AIR 1921 Cal 459
  • B. vs. B. (1901) P 39: 70 LJ P 4
  • W. vs. S. 1905 P 231: 93 LT 456: 74 LJP 112
  • In re Mathew R., 113 Moo App 701: 688 A2d 956
  • Laznovsky vs. Laznovsky, 74.5 A 2d 1054
  • Armando Schmerbar vs. State of California 384 US 757
  • Paul H. Breithaupt vs. Morris Abram 352 US 432
  • Charles Joseph Kastigar and Michael Gorean Stewart vs. United States 32 Led 2d 212
  • F. vs. P. (1896) 75 LT 192
  • Harrison vs. Harrison (1841) 3 Curt 16: 163 BR 638
  • Pollard vs. Wybourn (1828) 1 Hag Ecc 725: 162 ER 732

Quotes from the Judgment

  1. "It is trite law that for the purpose of grant of a decree of divorce what it is necessary is that the petitioner must establish that unsoundness of mind of the respondent is incurable or his/her mental disorder is of such a kind and to such an extent that he cannot be reasonably be expected to live with his/her spouse. Medical testimony for arriving at such finding although may to be imperative but undoubtedly would be of considerable assistance to the Court". "A party may behave strangely or oddly inappropriate and progressive in deterioration in the level of work may lead to a conclusion that he or she suffers from an illness of slow developing over years. A few strong instances indicting a short temper and somewhat erratic behaviour on the part of the spouse may not amount to his/her suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder".

  2. "The Hindu Marriage Act or any other law governing the field does not contain any express provision empowering the Court to issue a direction upon a party to matrimonial case to compel him to submit himself to a medical examination. However, in our opinion, this does not preclude a Court from passing such an order".

Top

Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit

Filed under: Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appellant: Vinita Saxena
Respondent: Pankaj Pandit
Citation: 113(2004) DLT 884
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judges: C K Mahajan

Vinita Saxena filed a case of divorce on grounds of mental disorder. It was dismissed. She filed this appeal challenging the judgement.

Facts

Vinita Saxena married Pankaj Pandit as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was not consummated. She claimed that she was subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty by her husband and his mother. It was alleged that prior to the marriage, Pankaj was suffering from mental disorder and was a case of Paranoid Schizophrenia and Psychopathic Disorder.

However, this fact was not disclosed to Vinita before the marriage. Therefore, she filed a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty and mental disorder. The District Court dismissed the case while rejecting the plea of cruelty on technical grounds and on the basis of evidence given by the witnesses that proved that Pankaj was not suffering from any mental disorder.

Against this order, the present appeal was filed in the High Court. Vinita challenged the order on the grounds that the District Judge failed to appreciate the medical record, deposition and medical description of her husband's disorder.

Arguments made on behalf of Vinita:
  1. The Trial Court had not appreciated her evidence on several issues that had proved her case. It was argued that she was treated with cruelty. And the fact that Pankaj did not object to the allegations of him suffering from a mental disorder proved her case.
  2. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the medical record, which proved that Pankaj was suffering from a mental illness.
  3. The Court failed to appreciate evidence of the fact that she was denied matrimonial happiness because of her husband's incompetence, which constituted cruelty.
Pankaj opposed all the allegations made in the appeal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Observations of the Court

The main issue for consideration before the Court was whether Pankaj was suffering from a mental disorder to such an extent that it could not be reasonably expected of Vinita to live with him? In that regard, after carefully examining the evidence of the witnesses, the Court held that the Trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that Vinita had failed to prove the issue and that Pankaj was not suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

Vinita's arguments that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate medical records; deposition and medical description of the disease were held to be without substance.

As to the question whether Vinita was subjected to cruelty, the Court opined that the conduct charged as cruelty is to be of such a character to cause in Vinita's mind a reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with Pankaj.

In this case, there was insufficient material on record and the evidence was insufficient to establish the cause of cruelty. Thus, the High Court opined that the Additional District Judge had rightly observed that the incidents of cruelty narrated by Vinita were not so grave to come within the scope of cruelty and the appeal was dismissed.

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • King vs. King, (1952) 2 All England Report (AER) 584
  • Harton vs. Harton. (1940) 3 AER 380
  • McEwan vs. McEwan, 1964 108 Sol. Jo 198 CA
  • Gollins vs. Gollins, 1964 AC 644
  • Smt Maya vs. Brij Nath, AIR 1982 Delhi 240
  • Dastane vs. Dastane, I 1981 DMC 293 SC: AIR 1975 SC 1534
  • Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi, I 1988 DMC 12 SC: AIR 1988 SC 121
  • V Bhagat vs. Mrs. D Bhagat, AIR 1994 SC 710
  • Sheldon vs. Sheldon, (1966) 2 AER 257, 259
  • Ram Narain Gupta vs. Rameshwari Gupta, II (1988) DMC 364 SC: AIR 1988 SC 2260

Top

J. Sudhakar Shenoy vs. Vrinda Shenoy

Filed under: Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act
Appellant: J. Sudhakar Shenoy
Respondent: Mrs. Vrinda Shenoy and Another
Citation: 2001(2) Kar.L. J. 438(DB)
Court: In the High Court of Karnataka
Judges: Harinath Tilhari and T.N. Vallinayagam

This is an appeal against the order of the Principal Civil Judge and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore dismissing the petition of Sudhakar Shenoy for divorce on grounds of cruelty and mental disorder.

Facts

J Sudhakar Shenoy and Vrinda Shenoy got married 13 years prior to the filing of the case as per the customs of the Gowda Saraswatha community. They had a son aged 11 years. Sudhakar filed a petition for divorce in the court of the Principal Civil Judge and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore, which was disissed.

Sudhakar filed an appeal in the High court of Karnataka that his wife's mental disorder was suppressed and a fraud was played upon him at the time of marriage. He elaborated that even on the wedding day, his bride-to-be after garlanding him, forcibly cut and removed her own bridal garland and threw it away.

Thereafter, Sudhakar learnt that his newly wedded wife had been undergoing treatment for mental disability. Even prior to the marriage she was admitted to a hospital and she was treated by a psychiatrist. It was also said that she was quarrelsome which made the entire family miserable.

Sudhakar informed the court that his wife even tried to commit suicide more than twice. She used to beat their son and did not treat him with love and affection. Finally he said that his wife was suffering from Schizophrenia and had strange habits making it impossible for him to live with her.

He had some more complaints about his wife who he claimed did not even fulfill her marital obligation and had denied him sexual intercourse for ten years and that he had been suffering on this account for the last ten years. He placed the blame on the mental illness and lamented that they could not live together.

Vrinda Shenoy stated that she was of sound mind. She added that as was customary her health had been investigated before the marriage was solemnized. She further added that she continued to remain physically fit. She further claimed that the initiation of divorce proceedings after a fairly long marriage was a result of the instigation of her sister-in-law (brother-in law's wife). Thus, Vrinda resisted the dismissal of the divorce petition filed by her husband.

The judge at the trial court stated that the case was being dismissed on the following grounds:
  1. Due to failure of the husband to provide adequate proof of allegations.
  2. Due to the acceptance of the fact that quarreling or causing embarrassment were common factors in family life.
  3. Due to the illness, certain marital obligations may not have been fulfilled, which however did not amount to cruelty.

Arguments made on behalf of Sudhakar Shenoy:

  1. Vrinda was suffering from a mental disorder (schizophrenia) and that the lowest court had erred in holding that the disorder was curable which was contrary to the records.
  2. It was impossible for him to live with her as her disorder was not curable and his family life was ruined because of her abnormal behaviour.

Arguments made on behalf of Vrinda Shenoy:

  1. On the other hand, his wife contended that the attempt to get divorce was because Sudhakar wished to marry again.
  2. The situation was escalated by his brother and brother's wife.
  3. There was no proof of schizophrenia.

Observations of the Court

The court pointed that the allegations about Vrinda's mental status and the supposed fraud at the time of marriage was illogical. It was observed that it was difficult to believe that Sudhakar waited for 13 years to discover his wife's mental disorder. If the behavior of the bride was so intolerable then the further conduct of the marriage should have been a problem. The fact was that the marriage was solemnized and subsequently a boy was born within two years. The so-called strange habits like drinking water mixed with turmeric powder, applying castor oil to hair and bathing twice a day etc, were not due to a mental disorder.

The Court also noted that another allegation was made that the wife attempted to commit suicide thrice, but there was no explanation or reason offered for the same. Furthermore, though Sudhakar had denied that he had filed the petition on the behest of his brother's wife, it appeared to be the root cause of the whole trouble.

The Court after examining the evidence provided by Vrinda regarding the marriage ceremony observed that such detailed and vivid narration of the marriage ceremony and her life thereafter revealed a woman of normal intellect, good behavior and conduct. Further the evidence regarding her admission to the hospital clearly shows her behavior as that of an ordinary woman unaffected by any disease.

The Court opined that evidence so vividly given by Vrinda only indicated that the husband's allegation of a mental disorder in his wife is neither believable nor acceptable and hence the finding rendered by the Trial Court is to be upheld in the light of the evidence available.

Held

The Court held that there is no merit in the appeal and confirmed the decree given by the family court. There were no costs.

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • Krishna Bhat vs. Srimathi, (1995) 2 Kar. L J 271: ILR 1995 Kar 1494
  • Gnanambal vs. GR Selvaraj, (1970) 2 Mad LJ 429
  • Tarlochan Singh vs. Jit Kaur, AIR 1986 P & H 379
  • Darbara Singh vs. Sudarshan Kaur, 1981 Hindu LR 157

Quotes from the Judgment:

"If any ordinary lady hears about such false news, certainly she will get mad. When the petition was dismissed by the Trial Court on 17-9-1994 only, in 1992 informing the wife that the divorce has been granted and custody of the child was given to the husband, certainly would upset any ordinary human being and especially a woman. Probably these are the attempts made by the husband to spoil the wife and make her mentally upset by giving such false news. This only indicates the husband's anxiety to somehow get an order of divorce by hook and crook by painting the wife with dark picture and charging her with such false news. Thus it is seen that it is the husband who has been inflicting the cruelty on the wife making her unhappy at times and the plea of mental disorder or schizophrenia are not made out on facts and the evidence rendered by the court below has to be confirmed and the same is confirmed".

Top

Joykutty Mathew vs. Valsamma Kuruvilla

Filed under: Sections 19 and 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, Sections 13, 13(1) and 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appellant: Joykutty Mathew
Respondent: Valsamma Kuruvilla
Citation: M.F.A.No's 752 and 774 of 1987 Decided on 17.10.1989 (Unreported)
Court: Kerala High Court
Judges: P.C. Balakrishna Menon and D.J. Jagannadha Raju

An appeal filed by Joykutty Mathew against the judgement of the trial court dismissing his petition for declaring his marriage with Valsamma Kuruvilla as null and void.

Facts

Joykutty filed a petition under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act seeking a declaration that his marriage with Valsamma be declared null and void. This petition was filed on the ground that Valsamma was impotent and she was unwilling to have sexual relations with him. According to him the only occasion on which they managed to have sex was when he sedated her. He also claimed that she was suffering from schizophrenia and his consent to the marriage had been obtained by suppressing this fact.

Valsamma denied all these allegations. She denied having any mental illness and claimed that they had a normal married life with sexual relations as and when they felt like it.

The couple had got married on 17.05.1982. Valsamma conceived and delivered a female child on 17.04.1984. The child died after living for two months and eight days.

The trial court dismissed Joykutty's petition finding the allegations made by him to be unsubstantiated. Against this judgement of the trial court, Joykutty filed this appeal.

Observations made by the Court

The High Court held that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations made by Joykutty. It held that the fact that Valsamma became pregnant and delivered a child went to show that she was not impotent. The High Court held that the couple went on a pleasure trip indicating that they were leading a normal happy married life.

The High Court observed that although there was some evidence to show that Valsamma had consulted Psychiatrists and Psychologists on certain occasions, there was no evidence to show that she was suffering from any serious mental disorder. There was ample evidence to show that she was a normal woman with good academic record. The High Court observed that Joykutty had invented the theory of lunacy only to secure a decree of nullity of marriage.

The High Court also rejected Joykutty's contention that his consent to the marriage had been obtained by fraud as this ground had not been taken by him before the trial court and had been alleged for the first time in his appeal before the High Court.

On the question of alimony the High Court awarded alimony of Rs 500 per month keeping in mind Joykutty's income (about Rs 4000 per month) and Valsamma's salary as a teacher (Rs 879 per month) and also an amount of Rs 5,000 towards court expenses.

Held

The petition was dismissed for above reasons.

Sections Referred:

  • Sections 19 and 36 of the Indian Divorce Act 1869
  • Sections 13(1) and 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955

Cases Referred:

  • Abraham Jacob vs. Usha K Mamman, 1984 Ker LJ 593, AIR 1985 NOC 217
  • Usha Abraham vs. Abraham Jacob, (1987) 2 Ker LT 582, AIR 1968 Kerala 96
  • Tarlochan Singh vs. Jit Kaur, AIR 1986 Punj and Har 379
  • Ram Narain vs. Smt Rameshwari, AIR 1988 SC 2260

Top

Alka Sharma vs. Abhinesh Chandra Sharma

Filed Under: Sections 5, 12 (1), 13 and 13 (1) Hindu Marriage Act,1955, Hindu Marriage (Amendment) Act, 1976
Appellant: Smt. Alka Sharma
Respondent: Abhinesh Chandra Sharma
Citation: First Appeal No. 72 of 1989; Decided On: 04.02.1991 (Unreported)
Court: In the High Court Madhya Pradesh
Judges: D.M. Dharmadhikari

Facts

Alka Sharma and Abhinesh Chandra Sharma got married according to Hindu rites and rituals. They lived together for about 12 days after the marriage. After which Alka went to her parents' house for a few days and then again stayed with Abhinesh for about 7 days. Their total stay together was for about 19 days.

Within a year of marriage Abhinesh filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for declaring the marriage null. It was stated in the petition that soon after the marriage, on the honeymoon night itself he discovered that his wife was abnormal and erratic in behavior.

According to him, Alka refused sexual intercourse on the very first night and showed all signs of mental unsoundness. He also stated that during Alka's second visit, she became extremely uncontrollable and violent. At that time a psychiatrist had to be called who examined her and stated that she was suffering from a mental disorder called 'schizophrenia' and had been under his treatment even before the marriage.

Alka denied all these allegations. The Trial Court however found the evidence to be in favor of Abhinesh and accordingly declared the marriage as null. Alka then filed the present appeal against the order.

The main contention made by Alka's lawyer was that according to Section 12 of the Act the mental disorder should be of such a serious nature that the person would be unfit for procreation of children. It was further stated that there was no evidence to show that Alka's alleged mental disorder was of such an extent that she would not be able to procreate. Therefore it was contended that the Trial Court had committed an error in granting the decree of nullity of marriage.

Abhinesh's lawyer stated that the mental disorder in a spouse was a condition that would make him/her both unfit for marriage as also for the procreation and therefore, if any one of the two conditions existed, it would be a good ground for the nullity of the marriage.

Observations of the Court

The Court first analyzed the point if Abhinesh's appeal for nullity of marriage was valid according to the relevant provisions of Section 12 of the Act. The Court referred to several previous cases and also examined the nature of Schizophrenia as a mental disorder by referring to its medical and legal definitions.

On the basis of these, the Court stated that the term 'procreation of children" should not be construed in a narrow sense as to only mean the capacity to give birth to children (refer to quotes).

According to the Court a sound mental condition was one of the essential qualifications for marriage and unsoundness of mind could serve as a valid ground for nullity of marriage if the appeal was made because the spouse was unable to discharge his/her marital obligations because of the mental disorder.

The Court then went on to critically analyze the evidence given by both the parties to establish whether or not Alka suffered from a mental disorder of a serious nature.

The Court examined the evidence given by Abhinesh and made a reference to the following abnormal behaviors alleged by Abhinesh:

Firstly, Abhinesh contended that in the first few days of marriage, whenever he had made advances towards Alka for performing sexual acts, she had repelled him and as a result he had never been able to satisfactorily accomplish sexual intercourse. He also stated that sometimes he had found that her face would terrify him and on some occasions he had found her looking at him with extreme hatred.

Secondly, it was also claimed that Alka never paid any attention to the instructions she was given and the questions she was asked. According to him she always behaved and acted according to her own wishes. He had also found her chattering to herself in solitude and whatever she spoke on such occasions was incoherent. Many more such instances were stated in order to explicate this point.

Thirdly, it was also stated that on one occasion she had left the gas on and the entire kitchen had been filled with gas. On one occasion, she had lost her purse. Abhinesh also stated that at one time she had urinated on the 'veranda' in the presence of his family members. An instance was also mentioned in which Alka had attempted to assault Abhinesh in the early hours of the morning for no apparent reason.

Abhinesh's mother and brother supported these allegations. The psychiatrist who had examined and treated Alka also gave his evidence. He stated that prior to her marriage she had come to him for consultation. He had also presented the relevant entry made in his patient's register.

The psychiatrist had testified that during her first visit he had found her to be in an excited state and had diagnosed her illness as Schizophrenia of paranoid type. He also confirmed that he had paid her a visit after her marriage at Abhinesh's house. At that time he had found her to be in a frenzied state, violent and crying.

The psychiatrist had also been cross-examined by Alka's lawyer. To specific questions regarding the degree of mental disorder his reply was that Alka was a 100% schizophrenic patient. He however also admitted that when he had re-examined her he had found that she had improved by at least 50%.

It was further stated that some electric shocks were also given to patients suffering from this disorder and he had administered such shocks to Alka in the past. He also believed that if proper environment and guidance were provided then she could improve.

In response to these allegations, Alka claimed that on the first night of the honeymoon she had been terribly upset because her husband had confessed to her that his father had left his wife and was living with another woman. She also stated that Abhinesh had further stated that in case a re-marriage or such an incident happened with him, Alka would have to meekly submit.

According to her these disclosures had upset her and as a result she had been nervous and fearful that night. However, in her written submission, Alka had admitted that she had been getting treatment from the psychiatrist.

Alka's lawyer had strongly criticized the testimony given by the psychiatrist. He had argued that the psychiatrist's testimony should not be given much weight because of two reasons.

Firstly, because he was distantly related to Abhinesh and secondly because he had shown over-zealousness by creating false evidence in the form of a prescription that had Alka's name on it. It was further argued that the psychiatrist had known both the parties and since he was distantly related to Abhinesh he should have told him about her illness.

It was also contended that since the couple had lived together only for 19 days, there would not have been enough time for Abhinesh to reach the conclusion that Alka was suffering from a mental disorder of a serious nature. The lawyer also argued that Alka had attained a post-graduate degree and was therefore highly educated. According to him the allegations of a mental disorder were not true.

In favor of this point he also stated that since Alka had been able to withstand the cross-examination and questioning in the Court, it was in his opinion quite clear that she was not suffering from the alleged mental disorder.

After analyzing these arguments the Court opined that they could not reject the psychiatrist's evidence just because he was distantly related to Abhinesh. The Court further held that Alka had been suffering from some kind of mental illness and the erratic behaviors described by Abhinesh were not mere trivialities.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Trial Court and granted the decree of nullity of marriage to Abhinesh.

Sections Referred:

  • Sections 5, 12(1), 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Cases Referred:

  • Ajitrai Shiv Prasad Mehta vs. Bai Vasumati, AIR 1969 Guj 48
  • Mandkishore Shaligram Vyas vs. Munnibai, 1979 MPLJ 105, AIR 1979 Madh Pra 45 Madhusudan vs. Smt. Chandrika, AIR 1975 Madh Pra 174
  • Smt. Asha Shrivastava vs. R.K. Shrivastava, AIR 1981 Del 253
  • Rajinder Singh vs. Smt. Pomilla, AIR 1987 Del 285
  • Ram Narayan Gupta vs. Smt. Rameshwari, AIR 1988 SC 2260
  • Whysall vs. Whysall, (1959) 3 All ER 389 (396)
  • Bennet vs. Bennett, (1969) 1 All ER 539
  • Pronab Kumar Ghose vs. Krishna Ghose, AIR 1975 Cal 109
  • S.M. Anima Roy vs. Probodh Mohan Roy, AIR 1969 Cal 304
  • Madhusudan Das vs. Smt. Narayani Bai, AIR 1983 SC 114

Quotes from the Judgement

" In context of Section 5 of the Act and the subject dealt with therein, namely to lay down conditions for a valid Hindu marriage, the word 'procreate' has to be assigned a wider legal meaning that is, according to me, capacity of a spouse 'to give birth as also to rear up and bring up children.' A spouse although not sterile and medically fit to give birth to children may still be unfit, due to his or her mental disorder, to look after and bring up children."

Top

George Joseph vs. Alphonsa alias Lovely Mathew and another

Filed Under: Section 19 of the Divorce Act (4 of 1869)
Appellant: George Joseph
Respondent: Alphonsa alias Lovely Mathew and another
Citation: AIR 1999 Kerala 25
Court: In the High Court of Kerala
Judges: Mrs. K K Usha and G Sivarajan

This is a case where in George Joseph approached the Ecclesiastical Tribunal for the nullity of his marriage on the ground that his wife suffered from mental illness at the time of marriage

Facts

George Joseph and Lovely Mathew’s marriage was solemnized as per the rites and ceremonies prevailing in the Syrian Christian Community. Within a year of marriage, George Joseph approached Ecclesiastical Tribunal of Thalachery Diocese for nullity of his marriage. The Tribunal declared the marriage between them as null and void. Major Archbishop’s Tribunal then sent the order for confirmation.

The main contention of George was that Lovely’s family members were well aware of the fact that Lovely was a ‘lunatic’ prior to the marriage and that her insanity was incurable in nature. According to him, Lovely’s family members had fraudulently concealed this fact from him before marriage and therefore his marriage with her should be declared null and void.

It had been alleged by George that Lovely displayed abnormal behavior on the first day of marriage itself. It was stated that at the time of the marriage ceremony Lovely was overly talkative and was laughing continuously. He also contended that the marriage was not consummated on the first night of marriage since Lovely refused to have sexual intercourse with him on the ground that she was having her menstrual period.

After the wedding, George found that Lovely was forgetful in nature and would start talking about inconsistent matters without reason. In order to corroborate this allegation many instances were cited. According to George, Lovely could not sleep at night and once at night she started crying that she wanted to sleep next to her mother and she even tried to open the door and run out.

About a month after the marriage, Lovely’s father was told about her behavior. It was stated that Lovely was then taken to the psychiatry department of a hospital and she was admitted there. George also alleged that Lovely’s father told the doctor that Lovely’s brother and sister were also insane. According to George, Lovely was discharged from the hospital after three days and she came to his place after that. He also stated that during the 16 days when they had stayed together, the marriage had not been consummated because of Lovely’s abnormal behavior.

It was argued by George’s lawyer that when Lovely stopped taking medicines she became ill again and ran away from the house. She was then admitted in another hospital where she continued her treatment for the next 10 days. It was also stated that she was violent during this time and she even tried to stab her father. According to George, she was still undergoing treatment for insanity.

It had also been alleged that her mental illness had been inherited and besides her, her mother, uncle, brother and younger sister were also suffering from mental illness and this fact was concealed from him at the time of the marriage. Further, he also stated that the Ecclesiastical Tribunal of Thalachery Diocese declared the marriage null and void. The order had been sent for confirmation to the Major Archbishop’s Tribunal.

In response to these allegations, Lovely filed a counter-affidavit in which she denied all the allegations against her. According to her, their marriage had been consummated on the first day of marriage itself and accusation that she had refused to have sexual intercourse with her husband was false. She also denied the allegations that she was taking medicines etc.

In the counter affidavit she made an allegation that her father-in-law had made overtures towards her and even when she had complained about this to her husband, he had not done anything about it. She further stated that because of this reason she became upset and was admitted in the hospital for treatment. She also claimed that on returning home, she stopped taking the medicines that caused further trouble for her because of which she was taken to another hospital.

Lovely also submitted that the certificates issued by the psychiatrists showed very clearly that her problem had started one month after the wedding and she had no previous history of any mental illness. She also denied the allegation that her uncle, brother and younger sister were suffering from mental illnesses. According to her, the marriage proposal had come through George’s sister who was staying at a distance of only about 200 meters from her paternal home.

She also stated that she was not aware of any order that was passed by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal. It was submitted that she was an accomplished girl who was capable of performing her marital obligations. In order to substantiate this point Lovely also stated that she had appeared for the Pre-Degree examination of the University of Calicut.

The case went to the High Court and the Single Judge held that there was an absolute lack of evidence to show that Lovely was mentally ill at the time of her marriage. According to the Judge, no material had been submitted by George to show that she was under treatment for a mental illness before her marriage.

The Judge also did not accept the contention that the consent for marriage had been obtained in a fraudulent manner from George. According to the Single Judge, even if Lovely had turned ‘lunatic’ after her marriage, it was not a ground for decree of nullity of marriage under Section 19 (3) of the Indian Divorce Act.

Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Kerala, George filed this appeal in a Higher Bench.

Observations of the Court

The Court held that the main question to be established was that whether Lovely was a ‘lunatic’ at the time of her marriage, not before or after. The Court then went on to examine the evidence to see whether it could be proved by George that she was insane at the time of their marriage.

The Court examined the evidence given by the psychiatrists and held that in the testimony of the psychiatrists there was nothing to show that she had been suffering from any mental illness at the time of her marriage. The certificates and other documents submitted by them only showed that she was suffering from some form of mental illness after her marriage.

Similarly, the Court found that the evidence given by other witnesses – George and his sister did not in any way show that she was a mentally ill person at the time of her wedding. Finally, the Court examined the evidence given by a family friend of George. He claimed that he had gone to Lovely’s paternal home only once and on going there, he had found her behaving in a very strange manner.

According to him, her father had told him at that time that she was suffering from a mental illness. He also stated that her brother, sister and mother were suffering from mental illnesses. The Court found it difficult to believe the testimony given by him since there was not much evidence that supported his testimony.

On the basis of these arguments the Court held that the nature of evidence did not satisfactorily prove that Lovely was insane at the time of marriage so as to get a decree for nullity of marriage. According to the Court, George was also not able to prove that his consent for marriage was obtained by fraud. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal.

The lawyer appearing on behalf of George had also contended that George was a young person and after 16 days of marital life, he has been living separately from his wife. According to him, it was unfair to expect George to continue in this state when his wife was unable to lead a normal married life due to her mental illness.

The Court was unable to accept the above contention for two reasons. Firstly, the Court referred to a previous case and held that according to that case, a court was not empowered to go outside the contours of the Divorce Act for granting a decree of nullity. Secondly, the Court held that evidence examined, did not show that Lovely was of an incurably unsound mind.

The Court also mentioned the fact that for some cases where one of the spouses becomes incurably unsound in mind, a decree for divorce may be granted under the Hindu Marriage Act. However, the Court held that Christians in Kerala were still governed by the provisions of the Divorce Act, 1869 and therefore even in cases of incurable mental illness of a spouse after marriage, no decree for dissolution of marriage could be obtained.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 19 of the Divorce Act (4 of 1869)

Cases Referred:

  • Mery Sonia Zachariah v. Union of India, 1995 (1) KLT 644
  • George Sebastian v. Molly Joseph, 1994 (2) KLT 387

Top

Ram Narain Gupta vs. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta

Filed Under: Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995
Appellant: Ram Narain Gupta
Respondent: Smt. Rameshwari Gupta
Citation: AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2260
Court: In the Supreme Court
Judges: AP Sen and MN Venkatachaliah

This is an appeal filed by Ram Narain Gupta challenging the decision of the High Court which reversed the Trial Court judgment dissolving his marriage on the ground that his wife was a schizophrenic.

Facts

Ram Narain Gupta and Rameshwari Gupta’s marriage was solemnized at Jhansi in the year 1979. In the year 1983, Ram filed a suit for the dissolution of marriage on the ground that his wife was a schizophrenic. In his suit, Ram pleaded that Rameshwari suffered from a mental-disorder, psychiatrically recognized as ‘schizophrenia’, which was of such a severity that she was rendered unsociable and was also given to violent propensities.

It was further stated that she was treated by the doctors at the Department of Psychiatry at the Medical College, Jhansi. However, despite competent professional treatment her mental condition continued to deteriorate to the point that she started making suicidal attempts and displaying violent and aggressive behavior towards others. Ram stressed the fact that her mental disorder was of such a degree that he could not be expected to live with her.

The Trial Court framed the necessary issues stemming from the pleadings. Ram called Dr. Ganesh Datt Shukla, Head of the Dept. of Psychiatry, Mahrani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi to support his version. Ram also examined Gyasi Ram who was an artisan and who claimed that during one of his visits to Ram’s house for some odd job, he had seen Rameshwari beating up small children and conducting herself in a disorderly manner.

Ram Janki Prasad, who was said to be the private-home-teacher of Ram’s nephews also corroborated Ram’s version. According to Janki Prasad there were oddities in Rameshwari’s behavior and she also displayed violent tendencies. Further, in order to show that Rameshwari was a ‘violent-lunatic’, Ram used the medical certificates issued by various doctors. Ram also narrated certain incidents wherein Rameshwari had exhibited unprovoked violence towards his sisters and had inflicted injuries upon them.

Rameshwari on the other hand appeared in the Trial Court and also submitted a copy of the order passed by the Magistrate in the proceedings under the Lunacy Act initiated by Ram for committing her to a mental asylum. In those proceedings, the Magistrate, after examining her, found no abnormality in her that would require institutionalized treatment.

The Trial Court accepted Ram’s case and recorded a finding that Rameshwari was afflicted with schizophrenia, which was dangerous for her as well as for those who lived with her and granted a decree for the dissolution of the marriage.

The case then went to the High Court and the High Court reversed the judgment given by the Trial Court. The High Court pointed out that even though the evidence indicated the possibility of some mental-disorder, the requirement of the law was regarding the existence of the requisite degree and the nature of the disorder that could alone justify a reasonable contention on Ram’s part that he could not live with his wife. This however was not established for this case.

The High Court also examined the literature on ‘schizophrenia’ and felt that it would be necessary for Ram to go further and establish the degree and severity of the mental illness, which would satisfy the requirement of the ground for dissolution of marriage envisaged in Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The High Court concluded that Ram had not shown that the mental illness of his wife was of such a kind and intensity to justify the dissolution of marriage.

The High Court also noticed certain shifts in emphasis in the two certificates that had been issued by Dr. Ganesh Datt Shukla. The first certificate dated 18-5-1983 did not contain any specific reference to the severity of the disease or to the violent propensities attributed to Rameshwari which tended to endanger the safety of others.

The later certificate dated 2-7-1983 however sought to supply this element. The High Court also noticed that certain events had taken place on 1-7-1983, in the wake which the certificate dated 2-7-1983 came into existence. The High Court referred to the evidence on record, which disclosed that at 11.45 am on 1-7-1983, Rameshwari had lodged an FIR with the jurisdictional police complaining that she had been assaulted, first by her husband’s nephew and then by the members of Ram’s family. Rameshwari also complained that Ram’s sisters and mother had threatened to extinguish her life by setting her ablaze.

The High Court further noted that an attempt was made to admit her to an asylum the next day and the medical certificate was also issued the next day. The High Court also evaluated the evidence of the artisan and the home tutor and pointed out the intrinsic improbabilities of the evidence and consequent unacceptability of their versions.

In particular, Janki Prasad, the home-tutor, had been unable to give Rameshwari’s description, i.e. her complexion, height etc. On this point the Court held that the inability of the witness in giving Rameshwari’s physical description showed that his entire statement was a tutored one.

The High Court also referred to Rameshwari’s grievance that the environment of hostility and harassment to which she had been subjected to by Ram’s sisters and parents had taken its toll and had rendered her apprehensive and irritable. The High Court held that Rameshwari’s case had to be seen against this background. Accordingly, the High Court reversed the judgment of dissolution of marriage passed by the Trial Court.

Ram then filed an appeal in the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the High Court in not granting the decree of dissolution of marriage.

Observations of the Court

The Court considered the evidence of the case along with the literature on mental health. The Court held that mere branding of a person as schizophrenic would not be enough for the grant of divorce. The appeal was accordingly dismissed and the Court upheld the judgment of the High Court.

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • Mc Loughin vs. O’ Brain, (1983) 1 AC 410: (1982) 2 All ER 298: (1982) 2 WLR 982
  • Smt. Rita Roy vs. Sitesh Chandra, AIR 1982 Cal 138
  • Bennett vs. Bennett, (1969) 1 All ER 539

Top

Mukesh Mathur vs. Smt. Veena Mathur

Filed Under: Sections 12, 13 (1) (iii) and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995
Appellant: Mukesh Mathur
Respondent: Smt. Veena Mathur
Citation: AIR 1989 Rajasthan 97
Court: In the High Court of Rajasthan
Judges: JS Verma and Farooq Hasan

This is an appeal against the order of the Family Court to pay a permanent alimony p.m. to Veena. They had been granted divorce on the ground that his Veena was mentally disabled.

Facts

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Family Court, Jaipur on a petition for divorce filed by Mukesh Mathur. Mukesh was granted divorce on the ground that his wife, Veena was suffering from a mental disorder. A permanent alimony at Rs. 350/- p.m. was also granted to Veena under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Mukesh was aggrieved by this grant of alimony while Veena made no grievance against any part of the Family Court’s judgment. The main question was whether there was any ground to interfere with the award of permanent alimony to Veena under section 25 of the Act.

Arguments made on behalf of Mukesh

  • The first contention was that Veena was suffering from the illness even prior to the marriage and therefore the marriage was voidable and could be annulled by a decree of nullity under section 12 of the Act. On this basis, it was argued that no permanent alimony under Section 25 could be awarded.

  • The other argument was that the award of Rs. 350/- per month as permanent alimony to Veena was excessive in the circumstances of the case. According to the lawyer, the conduct of the parties and the state of affairs did not justify the award, which he argued, should in fact be much less. His main contention was that Veena’s illness had been withheld from Mukesh before the marriage and besides Mukesh’s financial status did not enable him to pay this amount out of his earnings.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined both the arguments and held that Mukesh had applied for divorce on grounds contained in sub-section 13 of the Act, which treated the marriage to be valid. According to the Court the first argument raised by Mukesh’s lawyer did not have any merit since Mukesh had obtained divorce on the basis that his marriage was valid.

With respect to the second argument, the Court pointed out that it was on record that Mukesh had accepted the proposal for marriage after meeting Veena prior to the marriage. According to the Court, Veena could not be blamed for the marriage ending in divorce.

Under these circumstances the Court did not see any reason to refuse the grant of alimony to Veena. The Court then took up the issue of determination of the quantum of the alimony. The Family Court had taken Mukesh’s monthly salary to be at Rs. 1720/- per month. An amount of Rs. 350/- p.m. had been awarded to Veena as permanent alimony.

Taking into account Mukesh’s financial position and the prospects of increase of his salary, the Court held that the award of Rs. 350/- p.m. as permanent alimony to Veena could not be treated as excessive. Thus there was no justification for the reduction in that amount. Consequently the appeal failed and was dismissed.

Sections Referred:

Top

Mamata Mishra vs. Subhas Chandra Mishra

Filed Under: Sections 12 (1) (c) and 5(ii) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 Section 19 of the Family Courts’ Act
Appellant: Mamata Mishra
Respondent: Subhas Chandra Mishra
Citation: 100 (2005) Cuttack Law Times
Court: In the High Court of Orissa
Judges: PK Tripathy and Pradip Mohanty

This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts’ Act filed by Mamata Mishra challenging the judgment of the Family Court, Cuttack that annulled her marriage on the ground that she was suffering from mental disorder.

Facts

Subhas Chandra’s case was that his wife, Mamata Mishra was suffering from organic brain disorder and recurrent attacks of epilepsy prior to their marriage. This fact was concealed from him and his family and thus the marriage took place fraudulently. He further stated that during Mamata’s stay in her matrimonial house, Subhas noticed some abnormality and loss of self-control in her.

One day, at about 11 pm she fell in her bedroom and ‘lost her senses’, which she regained after a while. Some days later, she suffered from another attack of fits and when she gained her senses she insisted that she should be taken to her parents’ house otherwise she would commit suicide. It was further argued that Mamata was regularly taking medicines in order to control these attacks.

She was also taken to the Assistant Professor of Neurology, SCB Medical College and Hospital for a medical check up. Before the doctor, Mamata disclosed that she was suffering from these fits for a year and a half, i.e. prior to their marriage.

When it was confirmed that she was suffering from epileptic fits Subhas had no option but to file a petition before the Judge in the Family Court, Cuttack for a declaration that the marriage was voidable and prayed for its annulment by the decree of nullity.

Mamata filed her written statement denying these allegations and stated that her husband had ill-treated her and demanded additional funds by way of gifts after marriage. She also made an allegation of termination of her pregnancy by Subhas.

In order to support his contentions, on behalf of Subhas three witnesses were examined, including the Assistant Professor of Neurology who had treated his wife. Six documents, which included medical prescriptions and a letter, which was said to have been written by Mamata, were also submitted. On behalf of Mamata as well three witnesses were three witnesses but no documents were filed in support of her case.

After considering the evidence on record, the Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that Mamata was suffering from recurrent attacks of epilepsy with mental disorder and this fact was concealed from Subhas and his family prior to the marriage. According to the Court the marriage had been solemnized by playing a fraud. Therefore, the Judge annulled the marriage by passing the decree of nullity.

Mamata then filed this appeal in the High Court.

Arguments made on behalf of Mamata

Mamata’s lawyer contended that the Judge of the Family Court had concluded that fraud was played by Mamata and her family members at the time of marriage, without appreciating the evidence on record. He further argued that a petition for the annulment of marriage could be entertained if this petition was filed within one year from the date of discovery of the fraud.

According to him, in this case the so-called fraud was detected on 25.6.1997 but the petition was filed on 13.7.1998, i.e. beyond one year from the date of discovery of the fraud. Lastly, he also argued that the term ‘epilepsy’ had been omitted from Section 5 (ii) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act by recent amendment. Therefore, the Judge of the Family Court was wrong in holding that the marriage was solemnized by playing fraud.

Arguments made on behalf of Subhas

Subhas’s lawyer on the other hand, contended that marriage was solemnized on 18.6.1997 by suppressing the fact that Mamata was suffering from epilepsy. Subsequently, on 26.6.1997, on suspicion, she was taken to the Assistant Professor of Neurology for treatment and after investigation, it was confirmed that she was suffering from epilepsy.

Thus, the fraud was detected on 1.10.1997 and the petition for the annulment of marriage was filed on 13.7.1998, which was within one year from the date of discovery of the fraud. He further argued that the amendment came into force at the time when the matter was pending before the Court while the petition had been filed much before that. According to the lawyer, it was settled by the principle of law that an amendment would run prospectively and not retrospectively. Therefore, no illegality had been committed by the Judge of the Family Court.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the evidence on record and held that there was no material, either oral or documentary, before the Judge, Family Court that Mamata was suffering from epileptic fits prior to or at the time of marriage. According to the Court, in order toestablish that Mamata played fraud, the onus lay with Subhas to collect convincing evidence.

According to the pleadings of Subhasand the evidence of other witnesses, the disease was detected on 25.6.1997 and there was no material on record to show that Mamata was suffering from epilepsy prior to the time of marriage. On the other hand, a witness examined on behalf of Mamata had stated that he knew her from childhood and had been present at the time of her marriage. After marriage, he had also been to Subhas’s house and had observed that both Subhas and Mamata were leading a happy married life.

The Court also observed that in his cross-examination, the doctor had not stated that epilepsy was non-curable. On the other hand he had admitted that 60% of the patients who suffered from this disease were curable. The Court held that Mamata was not suffering from incurable epilepsy. Therefore, it could not be construed that she had played fraud on Subhas and his family.

The Court also examined the other two arguments extended by Mamata’s lawyer. With respect to the first contention that the petition for annulment of marriage was not filed within one year from the date of detection of the disease, the Court held that the petition was in fact presented within the specified time and thus this argument was dismissed.

The Court also held that the amendment to the Act would have no effect on the present proceedings since the case was pending before the Court at the time of the amendment. Accordingly, the Court dismissed this argument extended by Mamata’s lawyer, as well.

A careful analysis of the facts and circumstances led the Court to conclude that though the petition of annulment of marriage was filed within time and the amendment in question had no bearing on the case, it was found that no fraud had been committed by Mamata prior to or at the time of the marriage. As a result, the appeal was allowed and the judgment given by the Judge of the Family Court was set aside.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 12 (1) (c) and 5(ii)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995
  • Section 19 of the Family Courts’ Act

Top

VC Thomas vs. An Thomas alias Kunjumol

Filed Under: Section 18 of the Divorce Act, 1869
Appellant: VC Thomas
Respondent: An Thomas alias Kunjumol
Citation: AIR 1999 Kerala 1
Court: In the High Court of Kerala
Judges: KS Radhakrishnan and S Sankarsubban

This is a petition filed by VC Thomas for the annulment of this marriage on the ground that his wife was mentally ill at the time of marriage.

Facts

VC Thomas filed this petition under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act to declare that his marriage to An Thomas was null and void on the ground that she was of unsound mind at the time of marriage. Their marriage had been solemnized at a Church following which they lived together for 30 days. According to Thomas during this period his wife exhibited abnormal behavior and mental illness.

Thereafter she was admitted in a hospital and was treated there for about 26 days by Dr Ajith Thomas. Later, she was taken to the Medical College, Kottayam where she was admitted for about 17 days under the treatment of Dr. John Mathai. According to Thomas, his wife, Kunjumol, had been suffering from mental illness for about a year and a half prior to their marriage. He also claimed that she was impotent. Aggrieved on these grounds he filed an appeal for nullity of their marriage in the District Court.

The District Court issued a notice to Kunjumol but she did not appear in the Court. Later an application was filed for appointment of her father as her guardian and a notice was issued to him. However, her father also did not appear. Subsequently the Court appointed Smt. K Bhagyam, advocate as her Court Guardian.

She contacted Kunjumol and filed her objection stating that after marriage the parties had lived together for 60 days and Kunjumol was not suffering from any mental illness as alleged by Thomas.

It was also stated that after marriage, while Thomas and Kunjumol were traveling on a scooter, Kunjumol happened to see a road accident and due to this shock she became withdrawn and had to undergo some treatment. She denied the allegations of impotency and unsoundness of mind that were made against her.

The District Court examined the oral and documentary evidence. No evidence was produced by Kunjumol in her defense. The District Court rejected the ground of impotency but allowed the petition after finding that Kunjumol was of unsound mind. Emphasis was laid on the oral evidence of the doctor who had treated Kunjumol in the Medical College, Kottayam as well as on the evidence given by Thomas’s neighbor. The case was then referred to the High Court.

When the matter came up for hearing at the High Court, the Court appointed AJ Jose, Advocate, as Court Guardian. He had met Kunjumol at her residence. According to him she was capable of leading a normal life; she was taking care of her parents, cooking food and behaving properly.

Thomas’s lawyer on the other hand contended that in the absence of oral or documentary evidence on the side of Kunjumol, it should be presumed that the allegations raised by Thomas for annulment of the marriage were proved. He also relied heavily on the oral evidence given by Dr John Mathai who had treated her.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the arguments extended by Thomas’s lawyer and held that even though according to the evidence of the doctor it had been stated that Kunjumol had a previous history of a similar mental illness one and half years back, there was no oral or documentary evidence to prove that.

Even though a neighbor who had been examined in the Court had stated that Kunjumol showed signs of mental illness at the time of marriage, nobody from the Church or any other independent witness was examined to establish that. The Court also referred to a previous decision of the Supreme Court in a similar case.

Based on the available material the Court stated that it was not in a position to hold that Kunjumol was suffering from a mental illness at the time of or before her marriage. However, since Kunjumol had failed to appear in the Court, Thomas was given an opportunity to collect more evidence in order to establish that Kunjumol was suffering from a mental illness prior to or at the time of her marriage. In order to enable Thomas to do so the Court remitted the matter back to the District Court, Kottayam. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

Sections Referred:

  • Sections 18 of the Divorce Act, 1869

Cases Referred:

  • Ram Narian vs. Rameshwari, AIR 1988 SC 2260

Top

Devi Sharma vs. Chander Mohan Sharma

Filed Under: Sections 12, 13 (1) (iii) and 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1 955
Appellant: Smt. Devi Sharma
Respondent: Chander Mohan Sharma
Citation: AIR 2003 Punjab and Haryana 327
Court: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Judges: Vinay Mittal

This is an appeal filed by Devi Sharma against the grant of the decree of divorce by the Trial Judge on grounds of mental illness.

Facts

Chander Mohan Sharma married Devi Sharma as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born out of the wedlock. Chander Mohan claimed that during the wedding ceremony, when they were going around the holy fire (pheras), his wife, Devi Sharma had fallen unconscious when only four pheras had been performed.

According to him, the pheras had not been completed subsequently since the family members of Devi Sharma had claimed that she was ill on account of an attack by ghosts. Chander Mohan contended that since the wedding ceremony had not been completed his marriage to Devi Sharma was null and void.

He also claimed that the abnormal behavior and acts of his wife since their marriage amounted to such cruelty as per which he was also entitled to seek divorce. According to him, he had worked in the Ministry of Home Affairs and the father of Devi Sharma also worked in the same agency.

Chander Mohan contended that as a result of their professional association he had been offered the proposal of marriage with Devi, to which he had agreed. He however, alleged that he had not been allowed to meet Devi alone before marriage. He further claimed that it was only after the wedding that he had found that Devi displayed strange behaviors. .

In order to show that his wife was suffering from a mental disorder Chander Mohan cited many examples, which included her very peculiar food habits, and the fact that she did not know how to cook or that she used to cook in dirty utensils etc.

He also stated that during the period when they were married he had been posted out of India to Surinam where he had found her behavior to be very upsetting. On one or two occasions Devi had torn off her clothes, and had once asked him to commit suicide so that she could get a job in his place in the ministry.

In response to these allegations, Devi Sharma submitted a reply in which she denied all the allegations leveled against her by Chander Mohan. She stated that her husband and his family had not been satisfied by the dowry she had got with her and were harassing her because of this reason.

She further claimed that the marriage ceremony had taken place in a proper manner and her husband had made up stories in order to nullify the marriage. Devi Sharma also stated that she had filed a case against her husband and his family in the Trial Court against the demand for dowry. Even her father had made a complaint against the dowry demands to higher authorities.

The Trial Court had taken up the following issues:
  • Whether the marriage performed between the two parties was complete as per the Hindi rites and customs or was it voidable?
  • If the preceding issue was not proved, could the marriage be dissolved on the grounds that Devi Sharma had treated Chander Mohan Sharma with cruelty?
  • Whether Devi Sharma was suffering from such degree of unsoundness of mind that he could not expected to live with her?

In order to support the claims the lawyer on behalf of Chander Mohan Sharma examined the evidence given by a psychiatrist who stated that Devi was suffering from Schizophrenia. On account of this the Trial Judge had held that since her disorder was incurable, the decree of grant of divorce could be allowed as per Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, he had dismissed the fact that the marriage was void and that Devi had treated her husband in a cruel manner.

Devi Sharma then filed the present petition against this order of the Trial Judge. She also prayed that since the marriage had been dissolved on the grounds that she was suffering from a mental disorder she should be allowed to get herself examined at AIIMS or PGI, Chandigarh. Subsequently, the Medical Board in PGI, Chandigarh, examined her.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the arguments given by both the parties. The Court took into consideration the report given by the Medical Board, PGI. Devi Sharma had been examined using psychometric tools, and case history. Based on these tests and her medical history the Board had concluded that she was not suffering from any mental illness at the time of the examination.

According to the Court, the previous evidence given by the psychiatrist that Devi was suffering from Schizophrenia was not based on any tests, reports or examination of previous history. The Court also stated that Devi had been subjected to a lengthy cross-examination on many occasions.

According to the Court, she had not displayed any peculiar behaviors during that time, which also proved that she was not suffering from a major mental illness. Furthermore, the Court opined that Chandra Mohan and his family had mistreated her.

In view of these findings, the Court reversed the judgments passed by the Trial Judge. The Court also dismissed the other two arguments made by Chander Mohan viz., the marriage was void and that Devi had treated him with cruelty. The appeal was thereby allowed.

Sections Referred:

Top

Prithvi Pal Singh vs. Joginder Kaur

Filed Under: Section 13 (1) (iii), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appellant: Prithvi Pal Singh
Respondent: Joginder Kaur
Citation: F.A.O. No. 121 of 1982; Decided on 4.4.1983 (Unreported)
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judge: N.N Goswamy

Facts

The marriage between Prithvi Pal Singh and Joginder Kaur was solemnized according to Sikh/Hindu rites and two children, a boy and a girl were born out of it. After about 6 years of marriage, Prithvi Pal Singh filed a Writ Petition in the District Court for decree of divorce on grounds that his wife was suffering from a mental disorder to an extent that he could not be expected to live with her.

In order to support this claim he alleged that since the time they had been married his wife had behaved like a person of unsound mind. According to him, she would start laughing, shouting and weeping without any reason and would often threaten to commit suicide. He further stated than when he discussed this with Joginder’s parents, he was informed that she used to behave in this manner even before marriage.

According to Prithvi Pal he consulted several eminent psychiatrists who diagnosed her to be suffering from schizophrenia and opined that this disease was not curable. He alleged that Joginder’s parents had hidden facts regarding the mental condition of their daughter from him at the time of the marriage and therefore it was a case of fraud. It was also sated that even after the marriage she used to go and live with her parents for long periods. As a result, they had lived together for only 5 years after their marriage.

This petition was contested by Joginder Kaur who denied being of an unsound mind. She admitted that she had been married to Prithvi Pal Singh and had two children from the marriage. She stated that she had been well balanced before marriage and during the entire period of their wedding. She also stated that she was open to getting herself examined by any Medical Board that the Court would recommend.

According to her, immediately after the wedding Prithvi Pal Singh had started demanding more furniture from her parents and his family also used to threaten her that if she did not get more dowry from her parents they would get their son married to some other girl who would give them good dowry. Despite this, she had tried to adjust with her husband’s family.

Prithvi Pal Singh’s lawyer examined several witnesses including the statement given by a psychiatrist who had treated Joginder Kaur by way of medicines and electric shocks. According to him, on the basis of her previous doctor’s prescriptions he had diagnosed her as suffering from schizophrenia.

Several of Prithvi Pal’s friends gave their evidence and stated that they had often seen Joginder Kaur in a state during which she would be crying and laughing at the same time. Prithvi Pal Singh also alluded to the fact that Joginder Kaur had written suicide notes and this had caused him a lot of mental torture.

Joginder Kaur’s lawyer also examined several witnesses in order to support her claims. The most significant was the evidence given by a Junior Resident from AIIMS. According to him, Joginder had come to him for her examination in order to find out whether she was suffering from any mental disorder.

He further claimed that another senior psychiatrist had also examined her and psychometric tests had been conducted on her in order to find out her mental condition. He finally stated that, she was not suffering from schizophrenia at the time she was examined. He also mentioned that schizophrenia was a serious illness but curable.

The Trial Court did not find that Joginder Kaur was suffering from a mental disorder of such a degree that Prithvi Pal Singh could not be expected to live with her. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the petition for grant of decree of divorce. Prithvi Pal Singh then filed the present appeal against the order passed by the Trial Judge.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the evidence given by both the parties. According to the Court, the doctor who had diagnosed Joginder as suffering from schizophrenia and had administered electric shocks to her had jumped to the conclusion without valid reasoning. He had only examined her for one day after which, he had administered electric shocks to her. According to the Court, the psychiatrist had also stated that schizophrenia was incurable whereas according to the latest Medical literature individuals suffering from this disorder could recover with proper treatment.

The Court held that Joginder Kaur had produced reports of her examination from AIIMS, which showed that she was not suffering from any mental illness at that time. The Court further stated that it had taken account of the fact that Joginder Kaur had been subjected to lengthy and grueling cross-examination to which she had responded in an alert and aware manner.

Based on the reasons stated above, the Court dismissed the present appeal and upheld the decision of the Trial Judge in not granting the decree of divorce to Prithvi Pal Singh. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

Section Referred:

Top

Smritikana Bag vs. Dilip Kumar Bag

Filed Under: Sections 12, 13 (1) (iii) and 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appellant: Smritikana Bag
Respondent: Dilip Kumar Bag
Citation: AIR 1982 Calcutta 547
Court: In the Hugh Court of Calcutta
Judges: Chittatosh Mookerjee and Ram Krishna Sharma

Facts

Smiritakana Bag and Dilip Kumar Bag got married according to Hindu rites and customs. About six months later Dilip filed a petition for annulment of his marriage with Smritikana under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act or alternatively for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. This petition was filed in the Court of the District Judge on the ground that his wife was suffering from a mental disorder.

It was alleged by Dilip that two days after their wedding he realized that Smiritakana had ‘mental infirmity’. It was stated that during one of the ceremonies, that took place after the wedding, she was found to be of completely unsound mind. She was extremely violent and aggressive. Thereafter she was examined by a psychiatrist, who gave her medicines but she continued to suffer from mental disorder.

It was also submitted that a clinical psychologist, also examined her. According to Dilip, since his relatives could not stay with Smiritakana in the same house, he rented a separate flat and took her there.

Sometime later when her father visited them she abused him because of which he fainted and had to be taken to the hospital. Dilip stated that he was unable to bear living with his wife and had sent her to her parent’s house. But one day when he had come back from office he had found her in his house.

According to him she had continued to abuse and misbehave. He then got her admitted in a hospital as an in-patient. While she was admitted there, Dilip had filed a petition in the Court of the District Judge.

The Court had rejected the prayer for annulment of marriage on the ground that Dilip had not satisfactorily proved that at the time of marriage Smiritakana was suffering from any mental disorder. However the Court allowed the dissolution of marriage under section 13 (1) (iii) of the Act. Smiritakana filed this petition against this order of the District Court. She denied all the allegations made against her.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that Dilip’s petition for dissolution of marriage under section 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed prematurely. The Court pointed out that Dilip had filed the petition even before one year of marriage had elapsed and the lower Court was not competent enough to entertain the Dilip’s petition for divorce. The Court pointed out that a Court has the discretion either to direct that the decree for dissolution shall not have effect till the expiry of one year from the date of marriage or to dismiss the petition.

It was also pointed out that not only was Dilip’s petition prematurely filed, but the evidence about Smiritakana’s mental condition covered such a short period that it was not possible to satisfactorily decide whether or not she was really of unsound mind or suffered from a mental disorder of such an extent that Dilip could not be expected to live with her.

The Court then went on to examine the evidence presented by the parties. According to the Court, the allegations made by Dilip could not be taken seriously because they had not been corroborated. Furthermore, apart from Dilip and his father none of the other family members or friends who had attended the wedding had been examined as witnesses.

With respect to the medical evidence, the Court observed that Dr Chakraborty and Nandi had not been examined as witnesses and therefore, the prescriptions given by them could not be treated as evidence. Similarly the evidence of other psychiatrists was also dismissed because of a number of discrepancies in their evidence.

The Court however took into account the testimony given by Dr KP Chatterjee who had been her doctor when she was admitted as an in-patient. According to him no mental disability was detected in her.

Another point that was taken up by the Court was regarding the evidence given by Smiritakana. The Court pointed out that she had herself appeared in the Court and had answered the questions in a sane manner. The Court also pointed out that she had been subjected to a lengthy cross-examination and even the lower court had not recorded anything unusual about her behavior when she appeared before them.

In light of the above-mentioned reasons the Court set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court regarding the dissolution of marriage under S. 13 (1) (iii) of the Act. The Court held that Dilip was not entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage on this ground.

According to the Court he had not been able to satisfactorily prove that Smiritakana was suffering continuously or intermittently from a mental disorder of a serious degree. Dilip and his father themselves had no personal knowledge about her state of mental health before marriage. The Court also rejected Dilip’s plea for grant of judicial separation.

The appeal was thereby allowed.

Sections Referred: Section 12, 13 (1) (iii), 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • Sawita Devi vs. Pran Nath, AIR 1967 J & K 89
  • Bowman vs. Bowman, (1949) 2 All ER 127:(1949) P. 353-356
  • Bamford vs. Bamford, 1956 CLY 2831
  • Nakul Chandra vs. Shyamapada Ghose, AIR 1945 Cal 381

Top

Radhamony Amma vs. Gopinathan Pillai

Filed Under: Section 13 (1) (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955t
Appellant: Radhamony Amma
Respondent: Gopinathan Pillai
Citation: I (1990) DMC 434
Court: In the High Court of Kerala
Judges: K.P. Radhakrishna Menon and B.M. Thulasidas

Facts

Radhamony Amma and Gopinathan Pillai got married and on the same day, Gopinathan took Radhamony to his house. According to Gopinathan, in his house, Radhamony behaved like a ‘mad woman’ and this made him quite upset. Because of this, Gopinathan was constrained to enquire into her peculiar behavior.

The enquiry revealed that Radhamony was a ‘lunatic’ and had been under treatment for the same for several years. Thereafter, she was taken to a psychiatrist who certified that she was suffering from an incurable mental disease. Gopinathan then filed a petition praying that since Radhamony was suffering from incurable ‘madness’, he should be granted decree of divorce.

In response to this Radhamony filed a statement and asserted that these allegations were baseless. The Court however, allowed the petition for decree of divorce. Radhamony then filed the present appeal against the order of the lower Court in the High Court.

Observations of the Court

The Court referred to relevant provisions of the law and then proceeded to examine the arguments. The Court considered the statements of the psychiatrists who had examined Radhamony. One of the psychiatrist had stated that he had treated her for “Hysterical psychosis” when she was 14 and that proper management had cured her.

He also opined that if one was afflicted with such an illness, he/she could not have a successful marriage at the time of the illness. However, the psychiatrist also pointed out that just because Radhamony had an illness of this nature at one point in her life, did not mean that she could not lead a happy married life.

In reference to this point, the Court took into consideration the fact that during the time they had been married, Radhamony had conceived while living with Gopinathan. Even though she had miscarried later, it showed that they had led a married life together.

The Court also took into account the statement given by another psychiatrist who had suggested to Radhamony that she should continue with the medicine since her illness was likely to recur. However, he had also opined that Radhamony could attain social recovery.

The Court also examined a statement given by Radhamony in which she had stated that she had been treated by this psychiatrist for failing memory that had been caused by the stress she had experienced due to her miscarriage.

The Court found backing for this argument in the letters Gopinathan had addressed to his wife during this period. According to the Court, these letters proved that Gopinathan had no case against Radhamony to the effect that she was an abnormal individual. On the other hand, it was held that the letters showed that Radhamony was capable of managing her own affairs along with the affairs of the members of the joint family.

The Court held that the above-mentioned circumstances established beyond doubt the fact that Radhamony was able to lead a normal married life. According to the Court, the lower Court had not approached the case from the right perspective. Accordingly, the Court set aside the order passed by the lower Court and allowed the appeal.

Sections Referred:

Top

Manisha vs. Pramod

Filed Under: Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appellant: Manisha
Respondent: Pramod
Citation: I (1990) DMC 540
Court: In the High Court of Bombay
Judge: A.A. Cazi

Facts

Manisha and Pramod cohabited for less than a year after their marriage. Pramod had then filed a petition for divorce on the grounds that his wife was suffering from a serious mental disorder because of which he could not be expected to live with her.

However, that petition was dismissed as it was premature and was filed before the completion of the minimum time stipulated under the law. He then filed another petition for divorce on the same ground. Next, after 3 years, he amended the petition by adding the ground of cruelty. He alleged that due to his wife’s abnormal behavior he was being subject to cruelty.

The Trial Court had held that both the allegations had not been proved. Accordingly, the petition had been dismissed. According to the Trial Court for about 3½ years after the case had been filed, Pramod had not felt that his wife had treated him with cruelty and had amended the petition only 3 years later. The Trial Court thus held that this amendment had been added only as an afterthought and could not be taken seriously.

Thereafter, Pramod filed an appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court. However, he did not push the allegation that Manisha was suffering from a mental disorder. He only took up the ground of cruelty. The Joint District Judge relied on a letter written by Manisha’s father to Pramod.

According to the Judge, the accusations made against Pramod therein had not been proved and thus the matter contained in the letter amounted to mental cruelty. The Joint District Judge had accordingly granted the decree of divorce to Pramod.

Manisha then filed the present appeal challenging the decision of the District Judge in granting the decree of divorce to Pramod.

Observations of the Court

The Court held that the Joint District Judge had committed an error in relying upon a letter that had not even been written by Manisha. According to the Court it cannot be said solely on the basis of the letter that Manisha had treated Pramod with mental cruelty.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Joint District Judge. Pramod was directed to pay the costs of this appeal to Manisha.

Sections Referred:

Top

Joginder Kaur vs. Surjit Singh

Filed under: Section 13 and 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Order 32 of the Civil Procedure Code. 1908 Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act
Appellant: Joginder Kaur
Respondent: Surjit Singh
Citation: F.A.F.O. No. 194-M of 1982, Decided on 25.15.1984 (Unreported)
Court: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Judge: I.S Tiwana, J

Facts

Surjit Sing filed a Petition under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 seeking a decree of divorce from his wife Joginder Kaur. He claimed that Joginder Kaur was not mentally sound and cited a number of incidents where Joginder had behaved in an abnormal manner

Surjit alleged that soon after their wedding, Joginder had started behaving in an abnormal manner and she would laugh and cry without any reason in the presence of family members and visitors. Further, she did not have a sense of decency, would urinate in the open compound in the presence of males, and sometimes would ease herself in the living room as well. Instances of her misbehavior with neighbors and visitors were also cited.

Joginder however, denied all the allegations and denied that she never suffered from any unsoundness of mind or mental disorder. She further claimed that she was being harassed by her husband and his family for dowry. She also stated that she had filed a case against her husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance and a case for dowry harassment against her in laws.

The Trial Court granted a decree of divorce, against which Joginder filed the present appeal in the High Court.

Observations of the Court

TThe High Court examined the evidence presented by Surjit in support of his allegations:

Firstly, in reference to a tape recorded conversation in which Joginder was supposed to have admitted that she was suffering from a mental ailment, the High Court observed that Surjit had nowhere explained either in the petition or in his statement as to under what circumstances and in what manner the conversation had been recorded.

Besides, none except Surjit himself had proved that the recorded female voice was that of Joginder. Even assuming that the voice was Joginders, the voice in the tape only mentioned having undergone an electric shock after which some injections had been given as treatment

Before the Trial Court Joginder had claimed that her husband had cooked up the story that she was mentally unsound and she volunteered to have herself medically examined by the Mental Hospital at Amritsar. She was admitted as an indoor patient in the hospital for about 25 days.

The Medical Superintendent of the hospital had opined that she was not suffering from insanity of any form. The senior clinical psychologist also gave his opinion that no signs of insanity were found except that Joginder was excessively neurotic and at times got confused while conducting the tests.

The Trial Court had however, doubted the validity of the evidence given by the Medical Superintendent and the senior clinical psychologist but the High Court held that the Trial Court had incorrectly rejected the said evidence. The Trial Court had instead relied on the evidence of Dr. R.L. Narang, Dr. Ajay Kohli and Dr. Sarabjit Singh.

The High Court however was not satisfied with their testimony, as they could not even properly identify Joginder as the patient they had treated. Even otherwise, the High Court felt that based on their testimony, it was not possible to conclude that Joginder Kaur was suffering from Schizophrenia.

The High Court also observed that even the Trial Court had found that Joginder was recovering from the disease and that under continued treatment she would recover. The Court thus held that the decree of divorce granted by the Trial Court was wholly unjustified.

Held: The appeal was allowed.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 13 and 13(1)of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
  • Order 32 of the Civil Procedure Code. 1908
  • Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act

Top

Rekha vs. Ravinder Kumar

Filed Under:Sections 13 (1) (iii) and 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appellant:Rekha
Respondent:Ravinder Kumar
Citation:II (1993) DMC 331
Court:In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Judge:Mr. R.D. Shukla

Facts

Rekha and Ravinder Kumar were married according to Hindu rites. They lived together as husband and wife and a girl child was born out of their conjugal relationship.

Ravinder however, filed a petition for divorce in the Trial Court on the ground that Rekha was suffering from a psychopathic disorder, which was later diagnosed as schizophrenia. It was also stated that she was intermittently suffering from mental disorder of such a degree that he could not be expected to live with her.

He submitted the following facts to show that she was suffering from mental disorder: According to Ravinder, a few days after the consummation of marriage, Rekha had suffered from a psychopathic disorder had lasted for 8 hours. It was alleged that at that time, she had been talking incoherently and her behavior had been irresponsible and aggressive. Her parents had been called and her elder brother had taken her to her father’s house.

Thereafter, she had come back to her husband’s house after 15 days and had stayed with him for 2 months. It was stated that it was at this time that she had conceived. However, she had suffered from recurrent depression and during her pregnancy she had started behaving aggressively and abnormally.

Thereafter she was taken to a doctor who had treated her and had also administered electric shocks to her during the course of the treatment. It was further alleged that after the delivery of the child, Rekha had not taken care of the infant and her behavior had continued to be irrational and abnormal. Thereafter she was admitted in a hospital at Vellore where it was discovered that she was suffering from Schizophrenia.

It was further alleged that even after her treatment at Vellore she had not recovered fully and was still suffering intermittently from the disorder. Ravinder thus stated that he wanted a divorce on the ground that she was still suffering from an incurable mental disorder.

In response to these allegations Rekha had accepted the fact that the doctor mentioned by her husband and the hospital at Vellore had treated her. She however, denied the contention raised by her husband that she was suffering from schizophrenia. She further pleaded that her behavior during pregnancy had become slightly abnormal because her husband at that time was living elsewhere and her in-laws had mistreated her.

This had caused her irritation. She further contended that she had obtained a degree of B.Ed as a regular student from a college and was presently taking tutorial and coaching classes.

The Trial judge had held that Rekha’s behavior was abnormal. Accordingly, the Court had allowed the petition and had granted the decree of divorce to Ravinder. Rekha had contested this order by filing the present appeal.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the evidence submitted by both the parties and also referred to the provisions of Section 13 (1) (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Based on the statements of the psychiatrists and other people, the Court opined that Rekha had not suffered from mental depression and had not been aggressive.

After examining the evidence given both by the doctor and the psychiatrist who had treated Rekha while she was at Vellore, the Court had concluded that some abnormalities of Rekha’s behavior could be attributed to the electric shocks administered to her by the doctor. The Court held that these electric shocks had been given to Rekha without any rhyme or reason.

According to the Court, the testimony given by the doctor did not inspire confidence since he had claimed the he had not maintained any records related to Rekha and had claimed to remember Rekha’s blood pressure that had been recorded 4 years ago.

The Court also considered the point forwarded by Ravinder’s lawyer that Rekha had not got herself examined at AIIMS and that this should be interpreted unfavorably for her. The Rekha’s lawyer had responded to this by stating that Rekha had wanted to get herself examined at AIIMS but Ravinder had not given her the travel expenses.

Ravinder’s lawyer had also contended that since there had been a delay on Rekha’s part in filing the present appeal, Ravinder had married a second time and for this reason, the present appeal should be held invalid. The Court however ruled out both these contentions.

The Court also observed that Ravinder had not visited his wife in the hospital, nor had he visited her at her parents’ house where she had been living for many years. Therefore, according to the Court, Ravinder Kumar was in no position to know whether or not Rekha was suffering intermittently from mental disorder.

The Court also took view of the fact that Rekha had finished her education after she had gone to her parents’ house and had also been taking tuition for students. It was also stated that during cross-examination Rekha had answered all questions reasonably and there was no evidence that she was suffering from a mental disorder.

In light of the above-mentioned facts the Court, quashed the order given by the Trial Court and held that Ravinder had not been able to show that Rekha was still suffering intermittently from mental disorder. Therefore, the appeal was allowed

Sections Referred:

Ajit Paul vs. Bessy Baby

Filed under: Sections 10, 15, 18 &19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869
Appellant: Ajit Paul
Respondent: Bessy Baby
Citation: 1996 AIHC 1727
Court: In the High Court of Kerala

This is a petition filed by Ajit Paul for annulment of his marriage to Bessy Baby on the grounds of insanity and physical underdevelopment of his wife.

Facts

Ajit Paul and Bessy Baby, both belonging to Syrian Christian community married in a church in Muvattupuzha, Kerala. Ajit alleges that Bessy stayed with him for only 15 days after which she went back to her parents’ house. According to him, Bessy is schizophrenic, physically underdeveloped and impotent and that these facts were concealed from him before marriage. Further, he stated that due to the physical and mental deficiencies, Bessy refused to have sexual intercourse and the marriage had not been consummated.

Bessy on the other hand denied the allegations and stated that her husband was not interested in normal sexual intercourse and was interested in only oral sex. Her claim was that deprivation of normal sexual intercourse coupled with insistence only on oral sex amounted to physical and mental cruelty entitling her to a decree of divorce.

Observations of the Court

With regards to the first point as to whether Bessy was schizophrenic at the time of marriage and if she was physically underdeveloped and frigid and if the fact was concealed from him before marriage, the Court observed that no evidence to support such allegation was produced before the Court. Further it was noted that no medical evidence or prescription to corroborate the same has been produced. Bessy had stated that she had been examined by two psychiatrists and a gynecologist who had certified her to be normal. Therefore, the Court found that there was no evidence to prove the alleged insanity of Bessy and the fraud by her and her family.

The Court then proceeded to examine whether the wife was entitled to divorce on the ground of cruelty in a petition that is filed for annulment of marriage. The Court looked into several previous judgments of various Courts and concluded that a wife could seek a decree of divorce in a case of annulment on the ground of cruelty.

In the above circumstances, the Court held that in the petition filed by Ajit for nullity of marriage there was no valid ground for allowing the petition and that the claim of the wife that her husband had subjected her to cruelty was proved. Therefore, the petition for nullity was rejected and the decree for divorce granted to the wife on grounds of cruelty.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 10, 15, 18 & 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869

Cases Referred:

  • Reynold Rjamani vs. Union of India, (AIR 1982 SC 1261)
  • Mary Sonia Zachariah vs. Union of India, 1995 (1) KLT 644 (FB)
  • Mary Sonia Zachariah vs. Union of India, 1995 (1) KLT 644 (FB)
  • Sm. Meera Guha, AIR 1970 Calcutta 266 (DB)
  • Abbas Ali vs. Mt. Rabia Bibi, AIR 1952 Allahbad 145
  • Sarah Abraham, AIR 1959 Ker 75 (DB)
  • Smt. Kamala Devi vs. Amar Nath, AIR 1961 J&K 33 (DB)
  • Prem Prakash Rubin vs. Smt Sarla Rubin AIR 1989 MP 326
  • Kaslefsky vs. Kalefskey 1950 (2) All ER 398

    Top