Voluntary consent of both parities required for valid marriage

Usha vs. Abraham

Filed under: Sections 18 & 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869
Appellant: Usha
Respondent: Abraham
Citation: AIR 1988 Kerala 96
Court: In the High Court of Kerala
Judges: K. John Mathew and K.G. Balakrishnan

This is an appeal filed challenging the order of the same Court allowing the petition for annulment of marriage on grounds of mental disorder and incapacity to give valid consent for marriage.

Facts

Usha and Abraham, both Christians married in a church in Kerala. It was an arranged marriage and both had visited each other before marriage. Abraham’s parents had also visited Usha and they had an engagement ceremony before marriage.

Abraham’s case was that on the day of the marriage he noticed symptoms of mental retardation in Usha. He claimed that when they were signing in the church records he noticed that Usha’s sister was prompting the spelling.

After marriage, he realized that Usha was suffering from severe mental retardation; therefore, he approached the ecclestial tribunal seeking directions for dissolution of their marriage, where his request was turned down.

After two years he left for Sharjah and returned after one year when he realized that his wife’s condition was not going to improve and that he was not able to lead a normal married life with her. On learning about the civil remedy he filed a petition before the Single Judge.

Usha however denied all the allegations made against her and stated that they had lived together normal married couples till her husband left for Sharjah. He also used to write letters and send gifts to her from there.

However, his behavior changed after a few years of his return which eventually culminated in his filing the petition for annulment of the marriage.

Several witnesses were examined on both the sides and the Single Judge appointed Usha’s mother as her guardian. The Court passed an order of annulment based on evidence and stated that Usha was a ‘lunatic’ or ‘idiot’ from the time of marriage and that she was incapable of giving consent for marriage.

However, the Abraham’s allegation that his consent was obtained by fraud was not accepted.

Usha filed the present appeal challenging the order of the single Judge. She denied all the allegations and stated that she was neither a lunatic nor an idiot and that the medical certificate and the letters could prove the same.

To clarify the point as to whether she was lunatic or idiot at the time of marriage, she was presented for examination before a medical board. The medical board opined that she was congenitally an ‘idiot’ and that she did not suffer from lunacy.

Her intelligence was found below average. She was found not to be congenitally impotent and that there was no gynecological defect. Abraham filed objections to the findings of the medical board and examined a psychiatrist to support his case.

Observations of the Court

After examining the evidence given by the psychiatrist and analyzing the relevant literature on ‘idiocy’ ‘mental retardation’ etc., the Court observed that the important question that arose in a case of this nature was that whether the parties were in a position to understand the consequences of their acts.

In this case, Court proceeded to examine if Usha possessed the capacity to understand the consequences of the marriage entered with Abraham. On this point, the Court opined that it was clear from Usha’s evidence and the letters exchanged between her and her husband that she knew the consequences of the marriage.

Further, after analyzing some of the previous judgments in this light, the Court held that voluntary consent of both parties was necessary for a valid marriage but the contract of marriage did not require high degree of intelligence. In order to ascertain the nature of the contract of marriage a person must be mentally capable of appreciating that it involves responsibilities normally attaching to marriage.

In a case where such an issue was raised, it was the responsibility of the other party to show that because of the mental disorder the other spouse was unable to know the nature and consequences of his/her acts.

After considering all the relevant judgments and evidence in this case, the Court held that Usha knew that object and purpose of marriage when she entered into the marriage and that her ‘lunacy’ or ‘idiocy’ was also not proved and held that the marriage between Usha and Abraham was perfectly valid in the eye of the law.

Therefore, the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside and held that their marriage could not be declared null and void under Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act and the appeal was allowed.

Sections Referred:

  • Sections 18 & 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869

Cases Referred:

  • I. Jayaraj vs. I. M Florence AIR 1978 Kant 69. Malimath J
  • T. Saroja David vs. Christie Francis AIR 1966 Andh Pra 178
  • Ranjuk Ranjan Das vs. Pranati Kumari Berera (1982)1 DMC 374: (AIR 1982 Orissa 37)
  • Daniel vs. Salara ILR !1976) 2 Ker 357
  • Ms. Jordan Diengdeh vs. S. S. Chopra AIR 1985 S C 935