Degree of Mental Illness

Ajitrai Shivprasad Mehta vs. Bai Vasumati

Filed under: Sections 5(ii), 10(1)(e), 11, 12, 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872
Appellant: Ajitrai Shivprasad Mehta
Respondent: Bai Vasumati
Citation: AIR 1969 Gujarat 48 (V 56 C 10)
Court: In the High Court of Gujarat
Judge: J.B. Mehta

This is an appeal filed by Ajitrai Shivprasad Mehta against the order of the Trial Court dismissing his petition for annulment of his marriage. He had filed the petition on the grounds that his wife was "mentally unstable" and was unable to lead a normal married life.

Facts

Ajitrai Shivprasad Mehta, a person with hearing and speech impairment married Vasumati Bai according to Hindu rites. He stated that he had relied on the representations made by his wife's father to his father.

After the marriage Vasumati came to live with Ajitrai who discovered that her "mental condition was defective" and that she was unable to lead a normal married life. He claimed that he was unaware of this prior to the marriage and that his wife's mental condition was incurable. Therefore he claimed that he was entitled to annulment of his marriage or to a divorce.

Vasumati however denied these claims and stated that the marriage was not based just on her father's representations as there had been opportunities prior to their marriage when Ajitrai had met her and talked to her.

Vasumati's case was that she is not 'mentally defective' and that this was a ploy on her husband and her in-law's part. According to her, they had been taunting her for not being able to bear a child after several years of marriage and that the present petition was filed so that Ajitrai could remarry.

Arguments made on behalf of Ajitrai

It was argued that -
  • The expression 'unsoundness of mind' has a wider connotation and includes feeble-minded persons and persons of dull intellect who would not be able to lead a full matrimonial life as other rational persons would do. Such a wide interpretation would include Vasumati as well who was mentally defective and the defect was congenital.

  • Vasumati was incapable of managing herself or her affairs, including problems of society and of married life, and such incapacity in her case being congenital, was necessarily permanent and incurable.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that Vasumati did not suffer from such mental infirmity that would make her an 'idiot' or a 'lunatic'. The Court responded to the certificate of 'incurably unsound mind' given by the psychiatrist on which Ajitrai's lawyer relied heavily on. The Court questioned the validity on several grounds.

  • First, the doctor admitted that he had met Vasumati only once and that too without any clinical examination.

  • Further, the doctor had declared that Vasumati was a 'low-grade moron' pronouncing that she would not be able to carry out the usual household duties; he however admitted that it was difficult to reach a conclusion about the degree of mental deficiency without a clinical examination, which takes the past history into account. The doctor also admitted that without this there is a likelihood of arriving at an incorrect diagnosis.

  • Finally, when questioned by the Court, the doctor stated that he would not call a person who he thinks is a 'low grade moron' as an idiot. He also added that Vasumati did not qualify either as an idiot or as a lunatic.

The Court observed that though Vasumati was slow in understanding complicated questions, she was able to give relevant answers to simple questions and stood the test of a searching cross-examination. Merely because she had a weak memory of the roads and places or names of relatives, she was not of 'unsound mind'.

The evidence made it clear that Vasumati was able to manage herself and all her affairs in her own simple way hence would also be able to cope with the obligations of a married life. Therefore, the "mental defect" was not of such a degree or extent that made her incapable of managing herself or her affairs.

This also indicated that she was not a person of 'unsound mind'. The judge also observed that when the argument of 'unsoundness of mind' is used as a ground for divorce, it is essential that this diagnosis be proved beyond reasonable doubt to satisfy the court. And since Ajitrai had not been able to do this, he dismissed the case.

The Trial Court held that Ajitrai had failed to establish that Vasumati was of 'unsound mind' at the time of marriage or that her mental condition was incurable. He was also held guilty of delay as a result of which his petition would not have been granted even if the grounds had been established. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Held:The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Sections Referred:

  • Sections 5, 10(1), 11, 12(1), 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
  • Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Cases Referred:

  • Whysall vs. Whysall, 1959 -3 All ER 389, 1960 P 52
  • Titli vs. Alfred Robert Jones, ILR 56 All 428, AIR 1934 All 273
  • Pancha vs. Emperor, AIR 1932 All 233, 33 Cri LJ 714
  • Harrod vs. Harrod, (1854) 1 K & j 4, 2 WR 612
  • Daniel McNaghten's case, (1843) 10 Cl. & F 200, 8 ER 718

Quotes from the Judgment:

"A person whose mental defect does not reach the state of insanity known as idiocy or lunacy can enter into a valid marriage tie and it would be absurd to dissolve nullify the marriage based on a wide interpretation of 'unsoundness of mind'. Feeble-minded persons or persons of dull intellect in whose cases mental infirmity is not serious enough to make them incapable of knowing the nature and consequences of marriage cannot be considered as person of "unsound mind" in the legal sense."

Top

Bani Devi vs. A.K. Banerjee

Filed Under:: Section 13(1)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appellant: Smt Bani Devi
Respondent: A.K. Banerjee
Citation: AIR 1972 DELHI 59
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judge: V.D. Misra

This is an appeal by Bani Devi against the decree for divorce that was passed on the grounds that she was of unsound mind.

Facts

Bani Devi and A.K. Banerjee had an arranged marriage. According to Banerjee, on the first night of marriage at about mid-night, Bani had shouted and yelled. Her face had become distorted and her eyeballs had gone in different directions. Her body was cramping and she was foaming from her mouth. However she regained consciousness after some time.

The following morning Bani's brother and a doctor were sent for. Her brother informed Banerjee that such attacks were transitory and that Bani had medicines with her, which would be helpful. Her brother also gave a brief history to the doctor. The doctor informed Banerjee that Bani was suffering from epilepsy and advised him that she should be put in a hospital.

Banerjee also stated that Bani had suffered these strokes for a duration ranging from 15 minutes to 45 minutes. Sometimes their frequency would be two a day and once she even suffered as many as 12 strokes in 8 hours. Banerjee filed a case for divorce and was granted the decree on grounds of Bani's unsoundness of mind. She then filed the present appeal against the decree for divorce.

Bani's brother was called as a witness and he admitted that Banerjee had called him to his house on the day following the marriage. However he described his sister's illness as a little bit of headache. Bani contended that she had suffered from some fits because of her father's death but she also claimed that she had recovered from them. She denied that she had suffered from any such fits in her husband's house on the first day of her marriage.

She further stated that she only had headache and also denied that she had been taking medicines. She also admitted that she had been taken to the doctor the day after the marriage and had also been admitted in Shadhara Hospital. However, according to her she had not suffered from any fits during her stay in the hospital.

Observations of the Court

The Court made reference to several relevant acts and analyzed the relevant evidence. On this basis the Court reached the conclusion that even though the evidence presented by both the parties was bound to be prejudiced, it was clear that Bani had suffered from a fit on the night of the marriage and that fit was of such an alarming nature that her brother had been sent for in the morning and he had taken her to a doctor. It was also evident to the Court that Bani was in the habit of taking medicines to overcome such fits.

The medical evidence consisted of various doctors who had examined Bani at some point. One doctor, a practicing neurosurgeon, stated that her brother had brought her to him and he had diagnosed her to be suffering from epilepsy with some associated mental deterioration. He however, was not able to say whether this disease could be cured or not.

Another doctor, who was working as a psychiatrist in Shadhara hospital and had treated her, claimed that when she was admitted she was suffering from mental deficiency along with epileptic psychosis.

According to him, mental deficiency was incurable and epileptic fits of a violent nature could be controlled to a variable extent but they could not be completely cured. Bani was discharged after a period of about 3 months on the grounds that "whatever was possible to be done had been done".

At the time of discharge her epileptic fits had been controlled to some extent. The doctor also stated that her disorder was congenital. The doctor had discharged her a few days before she finally left, but since nobody came to take her, she stayed in the hospital for a few more days. He further claimed that Bani was still having epileptic fits and fits of violence. He was not cross-examined regarding the sickness or its nature.

Banerjee also produced the Medical Superintendent and Senior Psychiatrist of the Shadhara Hospital. On the basis of the records he stated that Bani suffered from epileptic fits with episodic attacks of violence. He further mentioned that if regular treatment was given then these fits could be reduced in severity and frequency.

When cross-examined he stated that he had been observing Bani during his weekly rounds. He further stated that he had recommended discharging her because she had shown improvement and could be managed at home.

He further stated that Bani's intelligence quotient was found to be 65 and she therefore had to be put in the category of a 'moron'. He also stated that the patient was not unsound but during her fits of violence she was of unsound mind. Finally he added that her IQ at this stage could not be improved.

The Court observed that both the doctors were unanimous in the belief that Bani was prone to having fits and during these fits she would be violent towards others and herself. Her discharge from the hospital had been on the criteria that whatever could be done for her had been done and improvement had been observed in the severity and frequency of her symptoms.

After examining other similar medical evidence, the Court concluded that Bani was a person of unsound mind since she was not capable of managing herself or her affairs. The Court also opined that Bani's unsoundness of mind was incurable and she had been in this state since her marriage. The appeal was thereby dismissed.

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • (1964) 1964-3 All ER 232 = (1964) 3 WLR 935, Robinson vs. Robinson
  • (1961) 1961-3 All ER 1105 = (1961) 1 WLR 1481, Chapman vs. Chapman
  • (1959) 1959-3 All ER 389 = 1959-3 WLR 592, Whysall vs. Whysall

Top

Usha Gupta vs. Santosh Kumar Pahadiya

Filed Under: Section 13(1) (iii) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appellant: Usha Gupta
Respondent: Santosh Kumar Pahadiya
Citation: I (1996) DMC 90
Court: In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Judges: T.S. Doabia

This is an appeal by Usha Gupta against the decree for divorce passed by the District Judge of Gwalior. Her husband Santosh had filed a petition for divorce on the grounds that Usha had been suffering from a mental disorder from the first day of marriage.

Facts

Usha Gupta and Santosh Kumar got married according to Hindu customs and traditions. Usha had passed the B.A. Part I examination at the time of marriage.They lived together for about five years and during this time they had two children - a son and a daughter.Santosh filed a petition for divorce on the grounds that Usha was suffering from mental disorder from the first day of marriage. The District Judge, Gwalior, passed a Decree for divorce. Against this decree Usha filed this appeal.

In his petition, Santosh had stated that Usha had been suffering from a mental disorder, which was not curable. He further stated that Usha's behavior had not been normal from the first day of marriage.

It was alleged that once Usha would start speaking she would go on speaking and during this period she would also start shrieking, dancing and singing songs. In the petition it was also stated that she had stayed with her husband for some time and then she went back to her parent's house.

On account of her abnormal behavior she was taken for treatment to Gwalior and was treated at Dr. Kale's clinic. It was contended that this treatment led to no improvement in her condition. Another doctor also treated her and again there was no improvement.

Electric shocks were also administered to her but instead of improving, her condition deteriorated after the shocks. It was also elaborated in the petition that Usha would not stay in the house and would run towards the road. She would break her bangles and even remove her 'sindoor'.

In the application it was also suggested that there was some improvement in her condition on account of the treatment and she was taken to her parents' house. She came back to live with her husband but there was no improvement in her condition. She would either keep quiet for hours or would go on speaking even to herself.

According to her husband, she would call him either 'Kalua' or 'Joker'. Santosh reported many such incidents in his application. It was alleged that she had tried to jump off the roof and once had even attempted to throw her son out of a window.

Based on all this an apprehension was expressed that there was every possibility that she would either cause injury to herself or to her children. Accordingly it was pleaded that in the given circumstances, he was entitled to a divorce on grounds of mental disorder.

Usha denied all the allegations made against her by her husband. In her petition she stated that they had lived together in a cordial manner. The fact that two children had been born out of the wedlock was highlighted.

She also contended that she had not been remiss in performing her matrimonial duties. According to her when she had gone to her husband's house for the first time, a very unusual incident had taken place.

Some gold ornaments that belonged to some women of her husband's family had been lost. As a result of this a search had been conducted and Usha's luggage had also been searched. She was also accused by some members of her husband's family of stealing the ornaments. It was also suggested that she had brought bad luck to the family.

This incident had upset her and she had suffered from shock. But soon after this she had recovered and had started performing her matrimonial duties. She also highlighted the fact that she had passed her B.A. final exams after her marriage. Furthermore, it was contended by her that she had been looking after her children and they were being given proper education.

She also stated that there had been some improvement in her husband's financial condition and because of this he wanted to get married a second time. She further stated that the petition of divorce that had been accorded by the lower Court was ill founded and the Court had not appreciated the factual position.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined several relevant cases and the evidence of the parties and witnesses. One of the doctors who had examined Usha claimed that she had been suffering from 'Acute Manic Psychosis' at that time. However, she also stated that she could not make claims about her condition when the case was being heard.

Another doctor, who claimed to have treated Usha stated that her relatives had informed her that she used to speak a lot and believed that she possessed a natural power bestowed on her by Lord Hanumana.

The doctor however further added that she wasn't sure if it was Usha who she had examined. Other doctors were also examined and one of them was not able to identify Usha. After observing and analyzing the evidence and relevant sections, the Court stated that:

  • There had been two children from the marriage, and Usha was looking after them to the best of her ability. It was further opined by the Court that the allegations made against her during the first day of her marriage could have possibly upset her. Further it was also opined that she might have been a feeble-minded person but that did not mean she was suffering from a mental disorder and was incapable of knowing the nature and consequences of her actions.

  • The Court also held that an inability to handle one's own affairs was an essential attribute of an incurably unsound person but that could not be said for her. In order to support this claim the Court referred to her school reports and her examination results. Furthermore, the Court held that the contention made by Santosh that it wasn't safe for him or his children to live with Usha was clearly not borne out by facts.

  • Finally, the Court concluded that Santosh had failed to establish the fact that his wife was suffering from a disease, which was incurable.

The appeal was accordingly allowed and the judgment given by the lower Court was reversed.

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • (1959) 3 All ER 389
  • (1969-1) All ER 539
  • AIR 1934 All 273

Top

Krishna Bhat vs. Srimathi

Filed Under: Section 13 (i) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appellant: Krishna Bhat
Respondent: Srimathi
Citation: 1995 AIHC 4330
Court: In the High Court of Karnataka
Judges: P Krishna Moorthy and VP Mohan Kumar

This is an appeal filed by Krishna Bhat against the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing his petition for divorce from his wife on the ground that she was of unsound mind.

Facts

Krishna Bhat and Srimathi got married in the year 1980. According to Krishna, he did not know Srimathi prior to their marriage; a common relative had fixed their marriage. According to him, he had seen Srimathi for the first time a few days before the marriage and he had consented to the marriage believing that Srimathi was a ‘normal’ person. He further alleged that after marriage, they lived together for about 2-3 days in his house and during that period Srimathi’s behavior was unusually calm and showed disclination towards cohabitation.

He believed that this was because of changed atmosphere. Thereafter they went to visit their relatives and came back. According to Krishna, about a month after the wedding she suddenly began to display peculiar and aggressive behavior and began talking incoherently. On one or two occasions she even attempted to run away from the house and had to be brought back forcefully. He further alleged that she used to abuse his family members without any reason and had no inclination towards cohabitation.

Krishna sent for Srimathi’s brother and intended to get appropriate treatment for her with the hope that her mental condition and attitude would improve. He then took her to Manipal and she was examined by a lady doctor. According to the doctor, Srimathi was mentally unsound and she could be kept under control only by continuous administration of drugs.

The doctor also stated that Srimathi could not be completely cured. At this stage, Srimathi’s brother, Ramachandra offered to take her to his house and assured Krishna that she would be completely cured and sent back after treatment. However, there was no response from them for some time and since he was anxious to know about the condition of his wife, Krishna went to her house twice but found that her condition had not improved at all.

Krishna stated that it was not possible for him to stay with Srimathi and on those grounds filed this petition for divorce.

Srimathi denied all these allegations and offered to go and live with Krishna. She expressed her willingness to carry out her marital obligations and denied the allegation that she had any aversion to cohabitation. According to her she had got herself examined from the doctor to establish that she did not suffer from any illness as alleged by her husband. She also claimed that she was capable of consummating her marriage.

After examining the evidence the Trial Court held that Krishna had not made out a case that his wife was incurably of unsound mind. The Trial Court further held that Krishna had totally failed to establish that his wife was suffering from any of the ailments alleged by him. On these grounds the petition for divorce was dismissed. Krishna then filed this appeal.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the arguments extended by both the parties and held that Krishna would have to establish that Srimathi was of incurably unsound mind or he would have to establish that she suffered continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind that he could not be reasonably expected to live with her.

The Court then took into consideration the testimony given by a doctor who had examined Srimathi. The outpatient record of the hospital in Manipal stated that Srimathi was suffering from acute schizophrenia and the doctor had prescribed certain drugs for her. The Court then referred to the literature available on schizophrenia.

Based on these reasons the Court held that Krishna had established that Srimathi on the date of marriage had been suffering from a mental disorder of such kind and to such an extent that he could not reasonably be expected to live with her. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the Court held that their marriage would stand dissolved by a decree of divorce.

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • Ram Narain Gupta vs. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta, AIR 1988 SC 2260

Top

Smt Pravati Mishra and Another vs. Jagadnanda Mishra and Another

Filed Under: Section 13 (i) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appellant: Smt. Pravati Mishra and another
Respondent: Jagadnanda Mishra and another
Citation: 1995 AIHC 3434
Court: In the High Court of Orissa
Judge: A Pasayat

Facts

Jagadnanda married Pravati according to Hindu rites. According to him, after their marriage, he discovered that Pravati was suffering from a mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that he could not reasonably be expected to live with her. According to him, her mind had not developed completely, she was suffering from a psychopathic disorder, and that she had an intelligence of a three-year-old child.

Jagadnanda further alleged that Pravati’s father deliberately suppressed her mental condition from him. After marriage when Pravati came to his house, she behaved like a child and called him ‘bhayia’. He further contended that she had no sexual urges and sometimes went around the house stark naked. Because of such abnormal behavior, the marriage between them was not consummated. After two months of marriage, he filed a petition for dissolution marriage. Pravati was also charged of being guilty of cruelty towards him.

Pravati and her father then filed a joint application and denied all the allegations made by Jagadnanda. It was submitted that Pravati did not suffer from any mental disorder but she had subnormal intelligence to a minor degree because of the fact that she had no schooling as she had suffered from a viral infection when she was young.

It was further stated that she was capable of having a sexual relation with her husband and had in fact had it with him on many occasions. It was alleged that Jagadnanda wanted to extract dowry to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh and that was the reason why this petition had been filed. A prayer was also made for the return of certain articles and for maintenance of Rs. 500 per month to Pravati since she had no source of income.

The Lower Court Judge evaluated the evidence in the case and held that the marriage of Jagadnanda and Pravati had not been consummated due to Pravati’s mental disorder and therefore Jagadnanda was entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage. It was further held that Jagadnanda was liable to pay Rs. 1200/- per quarter to Pravati as maintenance.

Pravati then filed this appeal challenging the decree of dissolution of marriage passed by the Subordinate Judge. Jagadnanda also questioned the correctness of the quantum of maintenance as awarded on the ground that since he was unemployed the quantum fixed by the Judge was irrational.

Observations of the Court

The Court referred to the various provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and examined the arguments extended by both the parties. According to the Court in the objections filed by Pravati, it was specifically mentioned that her intelligence was subnormal. The Subordinate Judge had also referred to the evidence of various psychiatrists who had examined her.

According to them, her IQ was below 50% after the age of 21 years and her mental disorder was incurable. She was also examined in the Court and she was unable to answer the question that by what number was 125 bigger than 115. According to the Court, the Subordinate Judge had rightly concluded that Jagadnanda was entitled to a decree of divorce.

The Court then took up the other aspect of the appeal, which dealt with the quantum fixed for maintenance, which was to be paid by Jagadnanda to Pravati. According to the Court, every able-bodied husband was obligated to maintain his wife. However, no arithmetic rule could be adopted in fixing the amount of maintenance. The Court held that it could find no scope for interference in the appeal filed by Jagadnanda. Both the appeals were accordingly dismissed.

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • Whyshall vs. Whyshall, (1959) 3 All E.R. 139

Top

Smt. Rita Roy vs. Sitesh Chandra Bhadra Roy

Filed Under: Section 13 (1) (iii), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appellant: Smt. Rita Roy
Respondent: Sitesh Chandra Bhadra Roy
Citation: AIR 1982 Calcutta 138
Court: In the High Court of Calcutta
Judges: Banerjee and B.N. Maitra

Facts

Sitesh Chandra married Rita Roy according to Hindu rites. The marriage was consummated and after a year a daughter was born. Sitesh then filed a petition for divorce on the grounds that Rita was mentally abnormal to such an extent that he could not be expected to live with her.

According to Sitesh, after marriage, Rita started displaying signs of abnormal behavior. She also attempted to commit suicide. Sitesh further contended that after observing her abnormal behavior he took her to the Mental Hospital for treatment. Thereafter she was also admitted in the hospital for some time.

In order to support these contentions, several witnesses were also examined. One witness was a doctor who had allegedly examined Rita. He testified that Rita suffered from Schizophrenia. Yet, in his prescriptions, there was no mention of the same.

Rita then filed a written statement in which she denied all of the above allegations. According to her, she had passed her higher secondary examination before the wedding. But after her marriage her husband and his family had treated her with cruelty because she gave birth to a daughter.

She also alleged that she had been forced to abort a child and this had affected her health quite adversely. She had thus gone to the Mental Hospital for treatment after which she had been declared fit

The District Judge had examined the case and had opined that Rita was suffering from a mental disorder that included Schizophrenia of such a kind that Sitesh could not reasonably be expected to live with her. Accordingly the District Judge had passed the decree of divorce. Rita Roy then filed the present appeal against the said order.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the evidence extended by both the parties. The Court also considered the fact that Sitesh or his mother had never made a mention of the fact that Rita’s behavior was of dangerous nature or that she became aggressive or abusive. The lawyer on behalf of Rita had also pointed out that Sitesh had made a plea for divorce on the grounds that Rita was suffering from Schizophrenia but the evidence that he had put forth showed that she was suffering from mental aberration, not Schizophrenia.

The Court took account of this and opined that on the basis of the evidence given, it could not be concluded that Rita had been suffering intermittently from a disorder of such an extent that Sitesh could not be expected to live with her. And therefore there was no sufficient ground to grant the decree of divorce. The Court then made references to several previous cases that had been mentioned by Rita’s lawyer to support his case.

On the basis of the aforementioned arguments, the Court held that Rita had only been suffering intermittently from a slight mental disorder. Accordingly, the Court held that Sitesh should have been more tolerant of his wife’s condition instead of filing a suit for divorce seven years after marriage. The Court concluded that the decisions arrived at by the Additional District Judge were erroneous and the appeal was thus allowed.

Sections Referred:

R. Lakshmi Narayan v. Santhi

Filed Under: Sections 5 (ii)(a)(b) & 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955
Appellant: R.Lakshmi Narayan
Respondent: Santhi
Citation: AIR 2001 SC 2110
Court: In the Supreme Court of India
Judges: D.P. Mohapatra & U.C. Banerjee

Facts

R.Lakshmi Narayan and Santhi married according to Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was arranged after Lakshmi Naryan met Santhi and spoke to her. After the wedding, the couple stayed together for 25 days and started staying separately thereafter. Following this, Lakshmi Narayan filed a petition for annulment of their marriage on the ground that Santhi suffered from chronic and incurable mental disorder and was not in a fit mental state to lead a married life.

Lakshmi Narayan contended that on the day of the marriage, Santhi refused to have cohabitation on the grounds that she was suffering from mental disorder from childhood and that she was forced into the marriage by her parents.

He further alleged that all his attempts to cure her ailment through treatment had failed and under the said circumstances, he filed a petition for annulment of their marriage.

Santhi denied all the allegations and stated that she and her husband were not able to lead a normal married life only on account of her husband’s refusal to continue living with her.

She alleged that Lakshmi Narayan was interested in marrying a second time so that he could procure more dowry. The Trial Court held that Lakshmi Narayan had failed to establish that Santhi was suffering from any mental disorder or that there had not been any sexual relationship, and that Santhi was not fit to lead a married life On these grounds petition was dismissed.

Lakshmi Narayan filed an appeal against the order of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court held that the Trial Court had failed to look into the medical evidence produced before the Court.

The Appellate Court therefore reversed the order of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said order, Santhi filed an appeal in the High Court. The High Court reversed the order of the Appellate Court and restored the order of the Trial Court. Thereafter, Lakshmi Narayan filed the present appeal.

Observations of the Court

After analyzing the relevant provisions under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court held that a petition for annulment on the ground of mental disorder must depend on a question of degree of the defect in order to rebut the validity of the marriage.

The responsibility of proving that the present case fell within the purview of the provisions of law was on the spouse filing the petition. Bearing the above principle in mind, the Court proceeded to examine whether Lakshmi Narayan had succeeded in establishing the case for declaring the marriage null and void on the ground of mental incapacity of his wife at the time of marriage.

It was further observed that it was not the case of Lakshmi Narayan that Santhi was incapable of giving valid consent for marriage in consequence of unsoundness of mind. From the facts found by the Appellate Court that allowed Lakshmi Narayan’s petition it could not be held that Santhi had been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or extent as to be unfit for marriage and procreation of children.

Further, to brand the wife as unfit for procreation of children because of mental disorder it needs to be established that the ailment suffered by her was of such a kind or such an extent that it was impossible for her to lead a normal married life.

It was also observed that mere giving a finding by the Appellate Court that Santhi was suffering from some mental disorder and that she had not cohabited with her husband during the period they stayed together was not sufficient to comply with the condition prescribed under law.

For the above reasons, this Court held that the High Court could not be faulted for dismissing the petition of Lakshmi Narayan. Accordingly, the Court did not interfere with the order of the High Court and dismissed the petition.

Sections Referred:

Top