Guardianship Denied if Interests of the Ward not Protected

Raju Skariya vs. Sheela

Filed Under: Section 19(3) of the Indian Divorce Act
Appellants: Raju Skariya
Respondent: Sheela
Citation: AIR 1996 Kerala 381
Court: In the High Court of Kerala
Judges: A R Lakshmanan, Sankarasubban and C.S.Rajan

Facts

Raju Skariya and Sheela were married according to Christian rites on 2.1.1989 in Erukkumchira, Kerala. According to Raju, Sheela was a ‘lunatic’ even before the marriage and this fact had been suppressed by her mother. He also stated that had he been informed about her condition before the wedding, he would not have married her. He also stated that the ‘lunacy’ continued even after the marriage due to which he could not lead a peaceful marital life and there were no chances of cohabitation either.

Raju claims that when he talked about it to Sheela’s mother, she tried to pacify him by saying that gradually her lunacy would decrease and that they would be able to live a peaceful life.

It was further stated that Sheela had lived with her mother on most of the days of their married life and due to her refusal to cohabit he had to sleep in a separate room. They would share the bed only if there was any change in her mental condition. On 14-02-1990, a male child was born to them but her mental condition did not change even after that. Further, Sheela was not in a position to think and was not capable of taking any decision and that she would speak non-sense.

The Trial Court had proceeded to find out whether Sheela was capable of understanding things and whether she could independently able to conduct the case. On being satisfied that she was incapable of answering questions, the Court appointed her mother as her guardian. The mother then filed an application stating that Sheela was ‘lunatic’ and an ‘idiot’ and that she was in her custody now. She had hidden the fact of her illness with a hope that after marriage she would become normal. The evidence provided by Raju and Sheela’s mother were also in support of Raju’s case and therefore, the District Court annulled the marriage. The case was then forwarded to the present Court for confirmation of the order.

Observations of the Court

The Court had to go through the case on its own since neither party appeared before the Court. After perusing the records, the Court was of the view that the lower Court judgment could not be confirmed.

In this context, it was observed that Raju’s evidence did not show the nature of the infirmity his wife was suffering from. Except for alleging that Sheela was ‘lunatic’ or an ‘idiot’, Raju had not specified whether he took her to a doctor or whether she was taking any medicine. Further, it also noted that there was an arrangement with Sheela’s mother by which he gave Rs.10, 500 to her for the maintenance of the child. No doctor or other witness was examined to prove Sheela’s mental condition.

The Court also examined some of the relevant provisions of the Indian Divorce Act and noted that nullity decree could be given only if it was proved that the spouse was ‘lunatic’ or an ‘idiot’ at the time of the marriage. In this regard, it was noted that there was no evidence showing her state of mind at the time of marriage. It was therefore observed that it could not be inferred that Sheela was ‘lunatic’ based on the available evidence. The Court held that any state of mind that fell short of lunacy or idiocy could not be ground for annulment of marriage(refer to quotes).

After referring to previous judgments and evidence, it was held that there had been a collusion between Raju and Sheela’s mother because of which she had testified in his favor. Further, it was observed that the lower Court should not have passed an order of annulment on account of two reasons- firstly, there was a child out of the wedlock and secondly, because it declared Sheela ‘lunatic’. It was also noted that her interests were protected by her guardian. Stating that it was not satisfied with the evidence in the case, it refused to confirm the order of the lower Court. The Court below was directed to appoint a new guardian and ask the guardian to file fresh objections.

With the above order, the lower court order was set aside.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 19(3) of the Indian Divorce Act

Cases Referred:

  • Ram Narain vs. Rameshwari Gupta AIR 1988 SC 2260
  • Titli vs. Alfred  Robert Jones AIR 1934 All 273

Quotes from the Judgment:

"Persons differ from one another in the degree of intelligence possessed by them. It would be a dire calamity if it could be said as a matter of law that a marriage, entered into by a person who is neither a lunatic nor an idiot is void simply because one of the parties lacks intelligence although he is able to understand the nature of  the bonds of  matrimony into which he is entering”.