Difference between Mental Illness and Insanity to be Noted

Mohinder Kaur vs. S.S. Sabharwal

Filed under: Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure
Appellant: Mohinder Kaur
Respondent: S.S. Sabharwal
Citation: F.A.O. No. 71 of 1979 Decided on 12.11.79
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judge: Yogeshwar Dayal

Facts

Mohinder Kaur and S.S. Sabharwal were married with two male children. Both the sons however died. S.S. Sabharwal then filed this petition for divorce on the ground that his wife was suffering from mental illness, which included schizophrenia, and also on the ground that she had deserted him.

In order to support his case, S.S. Sabharwal stated that his wife had been suffering from incurable insanity from the very start of their marriage. According to him, he had continued to provide her treatment with the hope that she might be cured. He also submitted the tickets of various hospitals, which they had visited for her treatment. It was also alleged that Mohinder could not be left alone in the house because she used to throw away the goods, cash, and jewelry from the house.

He also went on to state that Mohinder’s mental state was so bad that one could even suspect death at her hands. According to him, she might kill while sleeping or administer poison without understanding the merits or demerits of her actions. It was also stated that she was quite capable of leaving the house during a fit of insanity.

However, Mohinder Kaur in response denied all of the above allegations. She stated that it was her husband who was guilty of extending extreme physical and mental cruelty towards her. She further alleged that her husband had started neglecting her immediately after the first year of marriage and that he constantly placed burdensome demands on her threatening that if she did not fulfill those demands she would be forced to leave the house. She also stated that she was kept on insufficient diet even during her pregnancy.

Furthermore, Mohinder claimed that their first child had died within 24 hours of birth and her husband or his mother had not even bothered to visit her in the hospital or enquire about her health. She also contended that when their second son, who was 4 years old, had fallen ill, her husband had refused to pay for his medicines and diet. The son had then suffered from paralysis and during this time, she had taken care of him all by herself. He had died at the age of 8. With respect to the fact that she was of an unsound mind, Mohinder Kaur denied all the allegations and stated that she was matriculate and had also worked on a part-time basis before her marriage.

At the Trial Court, the husband had presented evidence of psychiatrists who had treated his wife. One doctor from AIIMS claimed that he had examined Mohinder Kaur and had diagnosed her as suffering from schizophrenia. In the cross-examination however, he had stated that he had only seen her twice but had made the diagnosis of schizophrenia on the basis of the symptoms. He had also brought the records wherein these symptoms were listed. In order to support the claims made by him, S.S. Sabharwal had also presented the evidence of neighbors and other doctors.

On the other hand, Mohinder Kaur’s lawyer examined the evidence given by another doctor of AIIMS who stated that he had treated her some time back but he did not clearly remember her condition. He did not have any records with him. The wife’s brother also stated that his sister was perfectly all right. During cross-examination, Mohinder admitted that her husband had never given her beatings, but she denied the fact that she had been treated at the Willington hospital by a private doctor as claimed by her husband.

At the Trial Court, the Judge considered two main issues; whether Mohinder Kaur was insane? Whether she had left the house of her husband, and if so, to what effect? After examining the arguments put forth by both the parties, the Trial Court rejected the plea of desertion but found that Mohinder Kaur was suffering from a mental illness, which was of an incurable nature and therefore granted the decree of divorce to S.S. Sabharwal.

Mohinder Kaur then filed the present appeal against the order of the Trial Court.

Arguments made on behalf of Mohinder Kaur

The lawyer on behalf of Mohinder Kaur contended that in the plea submitted by S.S. Sabharwal, it had been stated that his wife was suffering from incurable insanity, whereas the evidence provided by him showed that she was suffering from schizophrenia. The lawyer also argued that the issue considered by the Trial Court was that whether Mohinder was insane but the finding had been that she was suffering from a mental illness. Therefore, the lawyer contended that the finding was contrary to the plea taken by S.S. Sabharwal.

Observations of the Court

The Court stated that Section 13 (1) (iii) had been amended in the year 1976, but S.S. Sabharwal had filed the case prior to this amendment. The Court then quoted Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Act before it had been amended and explained that prior to its amendment, this section had not made any distinction between the mental illness and insanity. According to the Court, the Trial Judge had given the judgment according to the amendment whereas; S.S. Sabharwal had framed the petition according to the Act prior to its .amendment

In this situation, S.S. Sabharwal filed an appeal seeking permission for amendment of the petition. The Court allowed the application for amendment and permitted S.S. Sabharwal to file the amended petition. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for trial on the basis of the amended petition. The case was accordingly remanded.

Sections Referred: