The Patna High Court has held that Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not make the mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient to justify the dissolution of marriage. The mental disorder and its degree must be such that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other.

The High Court was considering an Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nawada in a Matrimonial Case whereby the petition filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for annulment of marriage was dismissed.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra, asserted, “Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act does not make mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify dissolution of marriage. The contents in which the ideas of unsoundness of mind and mental disorder occur in section as ground for dissolution of a marriage, require assessment of degree of mental disorder and its degree must be such that spouse seeking relief cannot reasonable be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not recognized as grounds for grant of decree. The burden of proof of existence of requisite degree of mental disorder is on the spouse who bases his or her claim on such a medical condition.”

Advocate Surendra Kishore Thakur represented the Appellant while Advocate Satish Chandra represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized in the year 2005 at Akbarpur, Nawada, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The appellant and respondent lived together for about 1 year and 11 months. It was the case of the appellant that immediately after marriage, he found some abnormal behavior in attitude and also in the movement of the respondent, which gradually intensified. The respondent was diagnosed with schizophrenia. Also, the respondent got a permanent disability in her leg, which hindered her movements.

It was the appellant’s case that the respondent, with mala fide intention, had withdrawn herself from the society of the petitioner and had deserted him. The respondent denied all the allegations regarding her mental condition or allegation that she is suffering from schizophrenia. The Family Court dismissed the divorce suit filed by the appellant-husband and concluded that the appellant-husband failed to prove that the respondent-wife had committed any cruelty with the appellant-husband. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant husband approached the High Court.

Reasoning

Taking note of the evidence adduced by the appellant, the Bench noted that he had not proved the mental disease or disorder of the respondent-wife, as the doctor who was treating the respondent-wife had not been examined.

The Bench explained that Section 13(1) (iii) provides that either of the spouses can apply for dissolution of marriage in case the other spouse is of unsound mind or suffering from mental disorder.

Referring to the Judgments of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Gupta v. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta (1988) and Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit (2006), the Bench said, “ In view of the above pronouncement, it appears that the ground of a spouse suffering from schizophrenia, by itself is not sufficient for grant of divorce under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Act as it may involve various degree of mental illness. The law provides that a spouse in order to prove a ground of divorce on the ground of mental illness, ought to prove that the spouse is suffering from a serious case of schizophrenia which must also be supported by medical reports and proved by cogent evidence before the Court that disease is of such a kind and degree that husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with wife.”

The Bench noticed that the appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim that the respondent-wife suffered from schizophrenia or any leg deficiency. Noting that the appellant himself abandoned the respondent-wife, the Bench said, “The appellant husband having deserted the responded-wife, cannot claim divorce on grounds of cruelty or other allegations when he himself is at fault.”

Thus, holding that the Family Court rightly dismissed the matrimonial case of the appellant-husband seeking divorce, the Bench dismissed the miscellaneous appeal.

Cause Title: A v. B (Case No.: Miscellaneous Appeal No.1152 of 2018)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Surendra Kishore Thakur, Sanjay Kumar Sinha

Respondent: Advocate Satish Chandra

Click here to read/download Order




Patna High CourtJustice P.B BajanthriJustice Sunil Dutta Mishra

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.