Unsoundness of Mind Concealed at the time of Marriage

Smt. Kiran Bala Asthana and another vs. Bhaire Prasad Srivastava

Filed under: Sections 12 (1) (c) and 5(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995
Appellant: Smt. Kiran Bala Asthana and another
Respondent: Bhaire Prasad Srivastava
Citation: AIR 1982 Allahabad 242
Court: In the High Court of Allahabad
Judge: Deoki Nandan

Facts

Kiran Bala filed this appeal against the decree dissolving her marriage with Bhaire Prasad Srivastava by a decree of divorce under the Hindu marriage Act on the ground that she was of an incurably unsound mind. Her husband, Bhaire had filed an appeal in a lower Court and had claimed the relief of declaration that their marriage was null and void.

The Trial Court had also recorded the finding that the consent of the husband to the marriage was obtained by fraud because he was not informed of the fact that Kiran’s former marriage had been declared null on the ground that she was of unsound mind at the time of marriage.

At the outset of the hearing of the case, it was suggested that Kiran was of sound mind and it was impossible to say that she was incurably of unsound mind. She had applied for a medical examination. After considering the material placed before the Court, the Court had referred Kiran’s case to the Lucknow Medical College for examination and observation.

Dr. Prabhat Sitholey, acting for Dr. J K Trivedi had prepared a report. This report stated that as such Kiran did not seem to have any mental disorder, which may result in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on her part. It was further stated that she was suffering from mild neurotic depression, which required medical treatment.

On receiving this report, the Court made an attempt to bring about reconciliation between the parties. On the Court’s persuasion it was agreed that Kiran would get herself treated at the Lucknow Medical College and obtain and submit a report of her mental condition after three months. The Court further directed that it would be upto Bhaire to look after Kiran’s treatment to the best of his ability and inclination in order to assure himself that her disease was in fact curable and cured, or otherwise.

Thereafter, Bhaire agreed to take Kiran back with him as a measure of trial in order to make sure that she was free from the disorder he had complained about. Kiran was also willing to go with him and the Court ordered that after three months this appeal would be taken up. Liberty was however given to the parties to apply to the Court for any directions or orders in the meanwhile.

However, about a month later, Bhaire appeared with Kiran in the Court for a direction that Kiran’s parents may take her away to look after her since he found it impossible to do so in view of her mental condition. Notice was served to Kiran’s lawyer and her father appeared in the Court. From Kiran’s conduct and appearance the Court made a note of the fact that she was not keeping fit in those days. It was clear that she was of an unsound mind.

The Court accordingly directed that Kiran should stay with her father for the time being and a date was fixed for the hearing of the appeal. Thereafter, Dr. JK Trivedi of the Lucknow Medical College was summoned in the Court as a witness in order to elucidate the facts and to give his expert opinion about Kiran’s mental condition.

On the issue of the earlier report, Dr. Trivedi stated that he himself had examined Kiran earlier but Dr. Prabhat Sitholey submitted the report because he had gone for leave. Before going on leave, he had examined Kiran on just three occasions and had opined that she was suffering from residual schizophrenia.

He further stated that he had examined the records of her treatment and the diagnosis was that she was suffering from schizophrenia. According to him, this disease was curable if the treatment was continuous and prolonged provided she stayed in a congenial environment.

Kiran’s lawyer contended that the finding of the Trial Court was based entirely on documents produced from the earlier case between Kiran and her first husband, DP Asthana. These documents showed that Kiran was an ‘idiot’ at the time of marriage with DP Asthana and it was on this basis that the marriage between them had been annulled.

According to the lawyer, this evidence was inadmissible and could not be referred to at all since it was irrelevant. According to him Section 13 (1) (iii) required that the mental disorder must not only be incurable, but should also have existed at the time of marriage.

According to the lawyer there was no evidence to show that Kiran was of an unsound mind or was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of her marriage and that the mental disorder was such that it could not be cured.

On the other hand the main argument raised by Bhaire’s lawyer was that Bhaire should be granted a decree of nullity of marriage on the ground that his consent for marriage was obtained by fraud. The fraud was that the fact of the annulment of Kiran’s earlier marriage with Dr. DP Asthana was concealed from him. According to the lawyer, if Bhaire had known that Kiran’s first marriage had been annulled on the ground that she was mentally ill, he would never have married her.

In response to this argument Kiran’s lawyer contended that it was not Kiran’s or her parents’ duty to go out of their way to inform Bhaire of this fact. He himself should have found out whatever he wanted to know. He had known Kiran for some time before the marriage and it was on account of her good looks that he had agreed to marry her. According to the lawyer, if Bhaire had not made any further enquiries it was not for Kiran or her parents to tell him why Kiran’s earlier marriage had been dissolved.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the arguments and held that the facts regarding the nullity of Kiran’s previous marriage on grounds of unsoundness of mind had been concealed from Bhaire. Accordingly the marriage between the parties was fit to be annulled by a decreeof nullity under section 12 (1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court also held that even though it was not necessary to establish whether or not Kiran was suffering intermittently or continuously from a mental disorder of a serious degree, the facts and circumstances of the case clearly showed that Bhaire could not be expected to live with her since she was suffering from schizophrenia, which was of a serious degree.

Held: The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Sections Referred:

Top

R. Sankarnarayanan vs. Anandhavalli

Filed under: Sections 12 (1) (b), (c) and 5 (ii) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appellant: R. Sankarnarayanan
Respondent: Anandhavalli
Citation: AIR 1998 Madras 198
Court: In the High Court of Madras
Judge: S. M. Abdul Wahab

Facts

R. Sankarnarayanan had filed a petition in the District Court for the dissolution of his marriage with Anandhavalli on the grounds of mental disorder. According to him, he had not known anything about Anandhavalli’s family prior to the marriage and during the marriage ceremony, Anandhvalli’s father had concealed the fact that his daughter suffered from recurrent attacks of insanity. Thus, Sankarnarayanan alleged that his consent for the marriage had been obtained by fraud. He further stated that their wedding reception also could not be carried out because of Anandhavalli’s behavior, which was strange, uncommon and odd.

After the wedding, Sankarnarayanan stated that Anandhavalli did not take any food, nor did she talk to anybody. Her relatives and family members were the only ones who took care of her and administered some medicine to her without consulting the doctor. According to Sankarnarayanan, a local exorcist was also brought in and he smeared white ashes on Anandhvalli’s forehead to drive out the evil spirit that was haunting her.

However, when she was taken to Sankarnarayanan’s house, her behavior became violent. When questioned, her father confessed that he had concealed the fact that his daughter was under treatment for recurrent attacks of insanity. After learning this, Sankarnarayanan sent a notice for the dissolution of the marriage.

In the counter, Anandhavalli denied these allegations and contended that she was not suffering from insanity or any mental disease. According to her, the marriage was conducted in the presence of two advocates who were Sankarnarayanan’s friend s.

She further submitted she had been upset since her mother had suffered from a paralytic attack and also because she was leaving her home. According to her, the treatment had not been for any mental disease but only for the grief that she was experiencing.

After examining the evidence, the Trial Court found that Anandhavalli was suffering from acute schizophrenia and had suppressed the material facts regarding the disease she was suffering from prior to her marriage. Accordingly, the Trial Court allowed the petition for the dissolution of the marriage.

However, on appeal, the District Court reversed the order of the Trial Court Sankarnarayanan then filed the present appeal challenging the order of the District Court.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that the District Court had approached the case from a very narrow perspective and had concluded that Anandhavalli was not suffering from Schizophrenia at any time. However, it was held that this conclusion of the District Court was contrary to the evidence available on record.

Based on the opinion of doctors, the Court held that Anandhavalli was indeed suffering from Schizophrenia, which was bound to recur at any time and her behavior could not be deemed as normal. Hence, it was held that there was ample evidence to prove that Anandhavalli was ill.

Further, the Court held that there was no evidence to show that the facts about Anandhavalli’s mental state had been disclosed to Sankarnarayanan’s parents or to him at the time of marriage. Thus after a thorough scrutiny of the evidence, both oral and documentary, it was also concluded that the fact that Anandhavalli was afflicted with Schizophrenia was suppressed and Sankarnarayanan’s consent for the marriage had been obtained by fraud.

For these reasons, the appeal was allowed and the decree of the District Court was set aside.

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • Rajinder Singh vs. Pomilla, AIR 1987 Delhi 285
  • Mini vs. James Koshy Alexander (1994) 2Mad LJ 487
  • Kanchan Devi vs. Promod Kumar Mittal, AIR 1996 SC 3192
  • Jayaradha vs. A.N. Mahalingam, (1994) 2Mad LW 690
  • Shanker Ram vs. Mrs. Sukanya, (1997) 2 Mad LW 371
  • Rajagopalan vs. Usha Rajagopalan, (1998) 1 Mad LJ 181

C.J.Joy v. Shilly

Filed under: Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act
Appellant: C.J.Joy
Respondent: Shilly
Citation: 1995 A I H C 6313
Court: In the High Court of Kerala
Judges: P.V.Narayanan Nambiar

This is a petition filed by C.J.Joy for declaring his marriage to Shilly null and void on the grounds that she was impotent and suffered from mental disorder during the time of and after the marriage.

Facts

C.J.Joy and Shilly married in a church in Kottappady, Kerala. According to Joy, Shilly and her parents had made a representation before marriage stating that she was of good physical and mental health. Based on such a representation Joy had agreed to marry her. He then claimed that during the marriage and immediately after it Shilly had shown serious symptoms of psychotic disorder. Both of them had lived together at her place and during this period, they has been unable to have intercourse due to her mental disorder.

Thereafter, they left for Joy’s house where they lived together for few more days. During her stay there, Shilly had allegedly tried to commit suicide following which she was treated for mental disorder as an in-patient in a hospital for about 60 days during intermittent periods. He also claimed that all his attempts to have sexual intercourse with her had failed due to her frigidity.

Subsequently, Joy had approached the Eparchial Tribunal for declaring his marriage null and void and later he also got the order affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. He was however advised to procure a decree of nullity from the Court as well. Therefore, he filed the present petition in the Court seeking directions for annulment of his marriage.

Shilly also filed her objections to the petition. She denied all the allegations regarding her mental disorder, attempt to suicide etc. made by Joy. On the other hand, she alleged that after the marriage Joy and his family members had ill treated her which had caused her some mental disorders and that the marriage had not been consummated because he had never taken interest in cohabitation and for the above reason she asked the Court to dismiss the petition.

Several family members, psychiatrists and doctors were examined as witnesses to prove that she was suffering from mental disorder during the time of and after the marriage. Witnesses were also examined from her side who stated that she was fine before marriage and that she started developing signs of mental disorder only after marriage.

Observations of the Court:

After examining the relevant documents, the Court looked into several issues such as whether Shilly was impotent and ‘lunatic’ at the time of marriage, and if the consent for marriage had been obtained by fraud. The Court observed that it was admitted by both the parties that the marriage was not consummated and the evidence showed that Shilly was responsible for this.

After examining several previous judgments and evidence, the Court held that continuous refusal of the wife to have the marriage consummated could be perceived as impotency. Further, it was held that she was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of marriage and thus it was held that the consent had been obtained by fraud.

For the above reasons, the Court allowed the petition and declared the marriage between Joy and Shilly null and void on the ground that she was impotent at the time of marriage and at the time of filing the case and that she was ‘lunatic’ at the time of marriage and that the consent for marriage had been obtained by fraud.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act

Sarah Syla vs. Ivan Thomas George and Others

Filed under: Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act
Appellant: Sarah Syla
Respondent: Ivan Thomas George and Others
Citation: 1995 A I H C 788
Court: In the High Court of Madras
Judge: Srinivasan, Raju & A.R. Lakshmanan

Facts

Sarah Syla was married to Ivan Thomas George. She claimed that Ivan had been cruel to her and that he was violent and abusive without any reason. Further, she claimed that respondents 2&3 (names not mentioned) had suppressed the facts about Ivan’s mental condition (paranoid schizophrenia & chronic maniac depression) and the information about the treatment meted out to him. The District Judge had allowed Sarah’s petition for dissolution of the marriage. Aggrieved by the order, the present appeal was made before the High Court of Madras.

Ivan had filed a counter affidavit and denied all allegations. Sarah had mentioned about the treatment given to him by Dr. Kuruvilla to prove that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Several documents were also filed to show that he was admitted to the hospital for treatment and that he was advised to continue drugs.

After going through the documents and the evidence submitted by Sarah, the Court confirmed the order of the District Judge and allowed the appeal.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act

Top