KOLLAM CHANDRA SEKHAR Vs KOLLAM PADMA LATHA
Bench: G.S. SINGHVI,V. GOPALA GOWDA
Case number: C.A. No.-008264-008264 / 2013
Diary number: 5171 / 2007
Advocates: TATINI BASU Vs
Y. RAJA GOPALA RAO
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8264 OF 2013
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3544 of 2007)
KOLLAM CHANDRA SEKHAR ... APPELLANT Vs.
KOLLAM PADMA LATHA ... RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
V. Gopala Gowda, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the common judgment and order dated 28.09.2006 passed in CMA No.
Page 2
2858 of 2002 and CMA No. 2859 of 2002 of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh as it has set aside the
judgment and decree of divorce granted in favour of
the appellant-husband dissolving the marriage between
the appellant and respondent by dismissing the
Original Petition No. 203 of 2000 filed by the
appellant for dissolution of their marriage under
Section 13 (1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(in short ‘the Act’) and allowing the Original
Petition No. 1 of 1999 filed by the respondent-wife
against the appellant by granting restitution of
conjugal rights urging various facts and legal
contentions.
3. The factual and rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties are adverted to in this
judgment with a view to examine the tenability of the
appellant's submissions. The relevant facts are
stated as hereunder:
2
Page 3
The marriage between the appellant and the
respondent was solemnized on 31.05.1995 at Kakinada
(Andhra Pradesh) as per Hindu rites and customs and
their marriage was consummated. It is the case of
the appellant that at the time of marriage, he was
working as Senior Resident at the All India Institute
of Medical Sciences in New Delhi. After marriage, the
respondent-wife joined the appellant at New Delhi and
secured employment in the said Institute.
4. It is the case of both the parties that when they were living at New Delhi, the brother of the
appellant died in an accident. At that point of
time, the appellant herein came to Yanam (Andhra
Pradesh) leaving the respondent at Delhi, who gave
birth to a female child on 07.07.1997.
It is contended by the learned senior counsel for
the appellant, Mr.Jaideep Gupta, in the pleadings
that dispute arose between the appellant and his
3
Page 4
parents on the one hand and the in-laws of the
deceased brother of the appellant on the other.
There were threats to kill the appellant. During
that period, respondent’s father stayed in the
company of the appellant and his parents at Yanam.
At that time, both the appellant and the respondent
suffered tensions and they were restless on account
of the situation created by the in-laws of the
appellant’s deceased brother. Both of them received
medical treatment and due to depression, appellant
submitted his resignation and the respondent also
resigned from her job at AIIMS. The appellant then
joined as Assistant Professor in Gandhi Hospital at
Secunderabad. The respondent and the child also
joined him at Hyderabad. It is their further case
that while they were in Hyderabad, the appellant used
to receive threatening calls from the in-laws of his
deceased brother which used to create tension in
4
Page 5
their family. The respondent was treated for
hypothyroidism problem.
5. In the counter statement filed by the respondent, she contended that after one year of their marriage, the appellant and his parents started
harassing her by demanding colour television,
refrigerator etc. In May 1998, after the death of
the father of the respondent, the appellant went on
insisting that the respondent gets the house situated
at Rajahmundry registered in his name and when she
refused, he started to torture her. The respondent
applied for post-graduate entrance examination, which
was scheduled to be held on 13.08.1998, and the
appellant was making arrangements to go to Madras on
12.08.1998 in connection with FRCS admission. On
11.08.1998, the appellant picked up a quarrel with
the respondent insisting that she must get the house
at Rajahmundry registered in his name to which she
5
Page 6
did not agree. The respondent also requested him not
to go to Madras as she has to appear for the Post-
Graduate entrance examination on 13.08.1998 for which
the respondent alleged that the appellant badly
tortured her both physically and mentally. A telegram
was sent to her mother with false allegations of her
mental illness with a view to create evidence as he
could have as well conveyed the message through
telephone as there was telephone facility at the
house of her parents. As the appellant was preparing
to appear for FRCS examination and would spend most
of his time in the libraries and the respondent and
their child would be left alone without help, he
suggested that the appellant should go to Rajahmundry
and stay with her parents to which she agreed and
went to Rajahmundry and joined Chaitanya Nursing Home
and Bhavani Nursing Home to work as a doctor. In the
second week of November, 1998, the appellant came to
Rajahmundry and asked the respondent to go to Yanam
6
Page 7
and stay with his parents saying that she can have
the company of his parents and she can carry on the
medical profession along with his father who was also
a doctor to which she agreed. Thereafter, the
appellant got issued a notice dated 25.11.1998 to the
respondent making certain false allegations saying
that she was suffering from schizophrenia and she had
suicidal tendencies etc., with the object of marrying
again for fat dowry. The respondent has denied that
she suffered from schizophrenia or suicidal
tendencies and further stated that during her
delivery days and subsequently on account of the
threats received from in-laws of the appellant’s
deceased brother, there was some depression for which
the respondent was treated and the appellant never
allowed her to go through the prescriptions of her
treatment at anytime and she was also not allowed to
see the medicines given to her as part of treatment
for her depression. It is stated by her that she
7
Page 8
believes that as part of the ill motive of the
appellant, he might have administered some medicines
to build up a false case against her with a view to
file petition for dissolution of marriage. The
respondent got issued a reply notice to the lawyer of
the appellant mentioning the above facts on
18.12.1998.
6. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel for the respondent, Mr. Pallav Sisodia, that
the appellant never cared for her and encouraged his
parents to dislodge her from the family house. She
filed O.S. No.53 of 1998 on the file of District
Munsif’s Court, Yanam for permanent injunction
against the parents of the appellant and filed
Interlocutory Application No. 237 of 1998 for
temporary injunction against them not to evict her
from the residential house where she was staying. It
is further stated that the appellant has no right to
8
Page 9
withdraw from her society and demand for divorce and
that she is entitled for restitution of conjugal
rights. It is contended by the respondent that the
impugned judgment is a well-considered judgment both
on facts and in law and the Division Bench of the
High Court rightly allowed the appeals filed by the
respondent refusing to grant a decree of divorce in
favour of the appellant and granting a decree for
restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the
respondent. Therefore, the respondent has prayed for
dismissal of the petition filed by the appellant
praying for grant of decree of divorce against her.
7.The appellant filed the counter statement to the
petition for restitution of conjugal rights denying
the allegations made in the petition. He contended
that the behaviour of the respondent even when they
were staying at New Delhi was marked by emotional
disturbances and she also received treatment from a
9
Page 10
psychiatrist there. He has further stated that he
underwent severe mental stress due to irrational
behavioural pattern of the respondent. Her erratic
behaviour started increasing as time passed by. She
started manifesting symptoms of schizophrenia like
violent or aggressive behaviour and a tendency to
be harsh and hostile towards other members of the
family without any reason whatsoever which were not
visible earlier. For that reason, she was kept with
her parents’ family so that she can develop a sense
of security which is required for patients
suffering from schizophrenia. He has further stated
that she also started developing the symptoms like
sudden withdrawal and being silent for long periods
without any communication.
8. Further, he has stated that after the death of his
brother, he brought his wife and child to Hyderabad
where he had secured a job as Assistant Professor of
1
Page 11
Orthopaedics in Gandhi Medical College. He further
contended that on account of the death of his
brother, tension developed in his family and that
neither he nor his family members harassed the
respondent demanding goods etc. He also stated that
at the time of marriage, mental status of the
respondent was not known to him. Further, the
respondent tried to evict his parents from their
house at Yanam and when she failed in her attempt,
she filed O.S. No. 53 of 1998 at District Munsif’s
Court, Yanam which shows her erratic attitude towards
the parents of the appellant.
9. The respondent fell seriously ill due to which
the appellant sent her mother a telegram to come and
take care of her. She went to live with her mother
at Rajahmundry as she consulted some psychiatrists
who advised her to live with her mother. The
appellant visited her after two weeks and found that
1
Page 12
her mental condition had aggravated to such a point
that it would be impossible for him to live with her
as her husband. He contended that she was showing
all the classical symptoms of schizophrenia including
violence, psychotic behaviour, suicidal tendencies,
withdrawal symptoms and abnormal and irrational
behaviour including in the matter of her speech and
her conversation. She also used to say that she
would like to commit suicide and he was, thus,
worried about her and the child. The respondent was
continuously on psychiatric treatment. The above
facts were narrated by the appellant in his divorce
petition filed before the trial court. He has
further contended that under the circumstances
narrated above, it was impossible for him to resume
cohabitation with the respondent as he was afraid of
danger to his life and that of his daughter and
therefore, he requested the Court for grant of a
decree of divorce and that the respondent’s petition
1
Page 13
for restitution of conjugal rights be dismissed as
she is not entitled to the relief prayed for by her.
10. The learned trial Judge in his judgment held that
the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce if
not annulment of marriage and that since the
disease of the respondent was not disclosed to the
appellant before marriage, she is not entitled to a
decree of restitution of conjugal rights. As a
result, O.P. 1/99 filed by the respondent for
restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed and
O.P.203/2000 filed by the appellant for grant of
divorce was allowed by dissolving the marriage
between the appellant and the respondent and decree
of divorce was granted.
11. The trial court relied on the certified copy of
report from Institute of Mental Health, Government
Hospital for Mental Care, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar,
Hyderabad, bearing No. A and D/402/99 submitted to
1
Page 14
the Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad, marked as Exh. B-10, given as per
procedure and by conducting chemical examination etc.
It is stated that the report clearly showed that the
respondent is suffering from schizophrenia. The trial
court relied on the case of Tarlochan Singh Vs. Jit
Kaur,1 where it was held that since the fact of the
wife being a patient of schizophrenia was not
disclosed to the husband before marriage, it would
amount to matrimonial fraud and therefore it was held
the husband was entitled to decree of divorce if not
annulment of marriage.
12. Being aggrieved by the common judgment and decree of the trial court passed in O.P. Nos. 1/99
and 203/2000 the respondent filed appeals before the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh questioning the
correctness of the same urging various grounds. The
High Court on re-appreciation of pleadings and 1 AIR 1986 P & H 379
1
Page 15
evidence held that there is no positive evidence to
show that the respondent has suffered schizophrenia
and even in the case that she suffered from
schizophrenia, it cannot be said that she was
suffering from such a serious form of the disease
that it would attract the requirements of Section 13
(1) (iii) of the Act for grant of decree for
dissolution of marriage between the parties.
13. On perusal of the facts and legal evidence on record and hearing rival legal contentions urged by
both the parties, the points that would arise for
consideration of this Court are:
(1) Whether the respondent is suffering from a
serious mental disorder i.e. schizophrenia
or incurable unsoundness of mind, and can
this be considered as a ground for divorce
under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955?
1
Page 16
(2) Whether the High Court has correctly re-
appreciated the facts pleaded and evidence
on record while dismissing the divorce
petition of the appellant and allowing the
petition for restitution of conjugal
rights of the respondent?
(3) Whether the appeal filed by the appellant
has to be allowed and we must restore the
judgment and decree of trial court and
dismiss the petition for conjugal rights
filed by the respondent?
(4) What order?
14. Answer to point nos.1 to 3:
These points are answered together as they are
interrelated. On careful scrutiny of the pleadings
and evidence on record and the decision of this
Court referred to above, the provision of Section
1
Page 17
13(1) (iii) of the Act is interpreted and the
meanings of 'unsound mind' and 'mental disorder' as
occurring in the above provisions of the Act are
examined and referred to in the impugned judgment.
The High Court, while examining the correctness of
the findings recorded in the common judgment of the
trial court, has placed reliance on Ram Narain
Gupta vs. Rameshwari Gupta2, wherein this Court has
interpreted the provision of Section 13(1)(iii) of
the Act and laid down the law regarding mental
disorder or unsound mind as a ground available to a
party to get dissolution of the marriage. The
relevant portions with regard to ‘unsoundness of
mind’ and ‘mental disorder’ from the case referred
to supra are extracted hereunder:
“20.The context in which the ideas of un- soundness of “mind” and “mental disorder” occur in the Section as grounds for dissolution of a marriage, require the assessment of the degree of the “mental disorder”. Its degree must be such
2(1988) 5 SCC 247
1
Page 18
that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not recognised as grounds for grant of decree. If the mere existence of any de- gree of mental abnormality could justify dissolu- tion of a marriage few marriages would, indeed, survive in law.
21. The answer to the apparently simple — and perhaps misleading — question as to “who is nor- mal?” runs inevitably into philosophical thickets of the concept of mental normalcy and as involved therein, of the ‘mind’ itself. These concepts of “mind”, “mental phenomena” etc., are more known than understood and the theories of “mind” and “mentation” do not indicate any internal consis- tency, let alone validity, of their basic ideas. Theories of “mind” with cognate ideas of “percep- tion” and “consciousness” encompass a wide range of thoughts, more ontolopical than enistemologi- cal. Theories of mental phenomena are diverse and include the dualist concept — shared by Descartes and Sigmund Freud — of the separateness of the existence of the physical or the material world as distinguished from the non-material mental world with its existence only spatially and not temporally. There is, again, the theory which stresses the neurological basis of the “mental phenomenon” by asserting the functional correla- tion of the neuronal arrangements of the brain with mental phenomena. The “behaviourist” tradi- tion, on the other hand, interprets all reference to mind as “constructs” out of behaviour. “Func- tionalism”, however, seems to assert that mind is the logical or functional state of physical sys- tems. But all theories seem to recognise, in
1
Page 19
varying degrees, that the psychometric control over the mind operates at a level not yet fully taught to science. When a person is oppressed by intense and seemingly insoluble moral dilemmas, or when grief of loss of dear ones etch away all the bright colours of life, or where a broken marriage brings with it the loss of emotional se- curity, what standards of normalcy of behaviour could be formulated and applied? The arcane in- fallibility of science has not fully pervaded the study of the non-material dimensions of “being”.
22. Speaking of the indisposition of science towards this study, a learned Author says: “...we have inherited cultural resistance to treating the conscious mind as a biological phe- nomenon like any other. This goes back to Descartes in the seventeenth century. Descartes divided the world into two kinds of substances: mental substances and physical substances. Physi- cal substances were the proper domain of science and mental substances were the property of reli- gion. Something of an acceptance of this division exists even to the present day. So, for example, consciousness and subjectivity are often regarded as unsuitable topics for science. And this reluc- tance to deal with consciousness and subjectivity is part of a persistent objectifying tendency. People think science must be about objectively observable phenomena. On occasions when I have lectured to audiences of biologists and neuro- physiologists, I have found many of them very re- luctant to treat the mind in general and con- sciousness in particular as a proper domain of scientific investigation.
1
Page 20
...the use of the noun “mind” is dangerously in- habited by the ghosts of old philosophical theo- ries. It is very difficult to resist the idea that the mind is a kind of a thing, or at least an arena, or at least some kind of black box in which all of these mental processes occur.
23. Lord Wilberforce, referring to the psycho- logical basis of physical illness said that the area of ignorance of the body-mind relation seems to expand with that of knowledge. In McLoughlin v. O’ Brian, the learned Lord said, though in a different context: (All ER p. 301)
“Whatever is unknown about the mind-body rela- tionship (and the area of ignorance seems to ex- pand with that of knowledge), it is now accepted by medical science that recognisable and severe physical damage to the human body and system may be caused by the impact, through the senses, of external events on the mind. There may thus be produced what is as identifiable an illness as any that may be caused by direct physical impact. It is safe to say that this, in general terms, is understood by the ordinary man or woman who is hypothesised by the courts...”
24. But the illnesses that are called “mental” are kept distinguished from those that ail the “body” in a fundamental way. In “Philosophy and Medicine”, Vol. 5 at page X the learned Editor refers to what distinguishes the two qualita- tively: “Undoubtedly, mental illness is so disvalued be- cause it strikes at the very roots of our person-
2
Page 21
hood. It visits us with uncontrollable fears, ob- sessions, compulsions, and anxieties.... . . . This is captured in part by the language we use in describing the mentally ill. One is an hysteric, is a neurotic, is an obsessive, is a schizophrenic, is a manic-depressive. On the other hand, one has heart disease, has cancer, has the flu, has malaria, has smallpox...”
The principle laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid case with all fours is applicable to the
fact situation on hand wherein this Court has rightly
referred to Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Act and
explanation to the said clause and made certain
pertinent observations regarding “unsound mind” or
“mental disorder” and the application of the same as
grounds for dissolution of marriage. This Court
cautioned that Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Act does
not make a mere existence of a mental disorder of any
degree sufficient in law to justify the dissolution
of marriage. The High Court in the present case
stated that a husband cannot simply abandon his wife
because she is suffering from sickness and relied on
2
Page 22
the evidence of RW-2, Dr. Krishna Murthy,
Superintendent, Institute of Mental Health,
Hyderabad, wherein it is stated by him that
schizophrenia can be put on par with diseases like
hypertension and diabetes on the question of
treatability meaning that constant medication is
required in which event the disease would be under
control. The High Court also relied on the evidence
of PW-4, Dr. Ravi S. Pandey, Professor and Head of
Department of Psychiatry at NIMHANS, Bangalore, who
had examined the respondent and stated that the team
could not find any evidence suggesting that she has
been suffering from schizophrenia at the time of
examining her and also stated in his cross-
examination that no treatment including drugs were
given to her at NIMHANS as they did not find any
abnormality in her behaviour. He also stated that
it is true that psychiatrically there is no contra-
indication in leading a normal conjugal life. Thus,
2
Page 23
they gave her a certificate, which is marked as Exh.
B-11, based on clinical examination and in the
absence of any abnormal behaviour including
psychiatric features in the past history of
respondent. The High Court has not accepted the
finding of fact recorded by the trial court on the
contentious issue and further stated that
“schizophrenia” does not appear to be such a
dangerous disease and it can be controlled by drugs
and in the present case, this finding is supported by
evidence of RW-2, who has stated in his examination-
in-chief that the appellant herein has not made any
reference to any of the acts of the respondent that
can constitute “schizophrenia” ailment. It is further
held by the High Court that there is no positive
evidence to show that the respondent has suffered
from schizophrenia and even in the case she has
suffered from some form of schizophrenia, it cannot
be said that she was suffering from such a serious
2
Page 24
form of the disease that would attract the
requirement as provided under Section 13 (1) (iii) of
the Act and that it is of such a nature that it would
make life of the appellant so miserable that he
cannot lead a marital life with her.
15. We are of the opinion that the High Court has
rightly examined the entire evidence on record and
correctly found fault with the findings of fact
recorded by the trial court with regard to the
ailment attributed to the respondent for seeking
dissolution of marriage under the ground of 'unsound
mind' which is a non-existent fact. In the case of
Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit3, this Court has
examined in detail the issue of schizophrenia wherein
the facts are different and the facts and evidence on
record are not similar to the case on hand.
Therefore, the observations made in the judgment for
grant of decree for dissolution of marriage under 3 (2006)3 SCC 778
2
Page 25
Section 13 (1) (ia) and Section 13(1) (iii) of the
Act cannot be applied to the fact situation of the
case on hand. But, we would like to examine what was
said in that case on the issue of this disease,
schizophrenia -:
“What is the disease and what one should know?
*A psychotic lacks insight, has the whole of his personality distorted by illness, and constructs a false environment out of his subjective experi- ences. *It is customary to define ‘delusion’ more or less in the following way. A delusion is a false unshakeable belief, which is out of keeping with the patient’s social and cultural background. German psychiatrists tend to stress the morbid origin of the delusion, and quite rightly so. A delusion is the product of internal morbid pro- cesses and this is what makes it unamenable to external influences. *Apophanous experiences which occur in acute schizophrenia and form the basis of delusions of persecution, but these delusions are also the re- sult of auditory hallucinations, bodily halluci- nations and experiences of passivity. Delusions of persecution can take many forms. In delusions of reference, the patient feels that people are talking about him, slandering him or spying on him. It may be difficult to be certain if the pa- tient has delusions of self-reference or if he has self-reference hallucinosis. Ideas of delu-
2
Page 26
sions or reference are not confined to schizophrenia, but can occur in depressive ill- ness and psychogenic reactions. Causes The causes of schizophrenia are still under de- bate. A chemical imbalance in the brain seems to play a role, but the reason for the imbalance re- mains unclear. One is a bit more likely to become schizophrenic if he has a family member with the illness. Stress does not cause schizophrenia, but can make the symptoms worse. Risks
Without medication and therapy, most paranoid schizophrenics are unable to function in the real world. If they fall victim to severe hallucina- tions and delusions, they can be a danger to themselves and those around them.
What is schizophrenia? Schizophrenia is a chronic, disabling mental ill- ness characterised by:
*Psychotic symptoms *Disordered thinking *Emotional blunting
How does schizophrenia develop? Schizophrenia generally develops in late adoles- cence or early adulthood, most often:
*In the late teens or early twenties in men *In the twenties to early thirties in women
What are the symptoms of schizophrenia? Although schizophrenia is chronic, symptoms may improve at times (periods of remission) and
2
Page 27
worsen at other times (acute episodes, or period of relapse). Initial symptoms appear gradually and can in- clude:
*Feeling tense *Difficulty in concentrating *Difficulty in sleeping *Social withdrawal
What are psychotic symptoms? *Psychotic symptoms include: *Hallucinations: hearing voices or seeing things. *Delusions: bizarre beliefs with no basis in re- ality (for example delusions of persecution or delusions of grandeur).
These symptoms occur during acute or psychotic phases of the illness, but may improve during periods of re- mission.
A patient may experience: *A single psychotic episode during the course of the illness *Multiple psychotic episodes over a lifetime…”
16. As per evidence of RW-2, schizophrenia is a
treatable, manageable disease, which can be put on
par with hypertension and diabetes. So also, PW-4,
who had examined the respondent at NIMHANS, Bangalore
2
Page 28
stated that the team could not find any evidence
suggesting schizophrenia at the time of their
examining the respondent and he had stated in his
cross-examination that no treatment including drugs
was given to her at NIMHANS as they did not find any
abnormality in her. They thus gave her a certificate
of normal mental status, based on the absence of any
abnormal findings in her medical report including
psychiatric features in the past history and normal
psychological test. We have carefully perused the
Report marked as Exh. B-10 dated 24.4.1999 given by
the Doctors of Institute of Mental Health, Hyderabad
before the trial court. The learned trial Judge has
misread the contents of the said report and also
wrongly interpreted the same and recorded the finding
that the respondent is suffering from the ailment of
‘schizophrenia’ and therefore he has accepted the
case of the appellant who has made out a ground under
Section 13(1) (iii) of the Act wherein it is stated
2
Page 29
that a spouse suffering from schizophrenia or
incurably unsound mind is a ground for dissolution of
the marriage between the parties.
17. The High Court has thus rightly set aside the
decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour
of the appellant and dismissed his petition and
granted a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in
favour of the respondent by allowing her petition.
The High Court has recorded the finding of fact on
re-appreciation of material evidence on record and
has rightly held that the trial court has erroneously
come to the conclusion that the respondent was
suffering from schizophrenia by relying on the
evidence of PW-1, who is the appellant herein and as
per the opinion given by the Committee of Doctors in
Ex.B-10. In the deposition by witness RW-2, Dr.
K.Krishna Murthy, he has stated in his examination-
in-chief that Schizophrenia has become eminently
2
Page 30
treatable with the advent of many new psychiatric
drugs. He further stated that many patients with
schizophrenia are able to lead a near normal life
with medication. The trial court has erroneously
relied on certain cases referred to and applied the
principle laid down in those cases to the facts of
this case even though they are not applicable to the
case on hand either on facts or in law as the
appellant has not proved the allegations made in the
petition against the respondent by adducing positive
and substantive evidence on record to substantiate
the same and that the alleged ailment of the
respondent would fall within the provision of Section
13(1)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, he has not made out
a case for grant of decree for dissolution of
marriage. We have carefully examined Ex. Nos. X-6 to
X-11, which are the prescriptions of medicine
prescribed to her by Dr. Mallikarjuna Rao, Dr. Pramod
Kumar and Dr.M.Kumari Devi. The above prescriptions
3
Page 31
mention the symptoms of the ailment of the
respondent, which were in the nature of delusions,
suspicious apprehensions and fears, altered
behaviours, suicidal tendency and past history of
depression. Reliance is placed by PW 1 on the above
documentary evidence to prove that the respondent was
suffering from the mental disorder of schizophrenia
and therefore it squarely falls within the provision
of Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act for grant of decree
of dissolution of marriage in his favour. The High
Court has rightly held that the trial court has
erroneously accepted the same and recorded its
finding of fact on the contentious issues to pass
decree of divorce in favour of the appellant, which
is contrary to the decision of this Court in the case
of Ram Narain Gupta vs. Rameshwari Gupta supra. The
same decision has been relied upon by the respondent
before the High Court, wherein the said decision was
correctly accepted by it to set aside the erroneous
3
Page 32
finding of fact recorded by the trial court on the
contentious issue.
18. The legal question that arises for our
consideration is whether the marriage between the
parties can be dissolved by granting a decree of
divorce on the basis of one spouse's mental illness
which includes schizophrenia under Section 13 (1)
(iii) of the Act. In the English case of Whysall v.
Whysall4, it was held that a spouse is ‘incurably of unsound mind’ if he or she is of such mental
incapacity as to make normal married life impossible
and there is no prospect of any improvement in mental
health, which would make this possible in future. The
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, in Pramatha
Kumar Maity v Ashima Maity5 has held that mental
disorder of the wife, even if proved, cannot, by
itself, warrant a decree of divorce and it must be 4(1959) 3 All ER 389
5 AIR 1991 Cal 123
3
Page 33
further proved that it is of such a nature as the
husband could not be expected to live with the wife.
The Allahabad High Court, in Mt. Tilti Vs. Alfred
Rebert Jones6 has held that where it has come on
record that the wife has improved her educational
qualifications and has been looking after her
children, the apprehension of the husband that there
is danger to his life or to his children is not borne
out is the finding recorded in the said case.
Inability to manage his or her affairs is an
essential attribute of an “incurably unsound mind”.
The facts pleaded and the evidence placed on record
produced by the appellant in this case does not
establish such inability as a ground on which
dissolution of marriage was sought for by him before
the trial court.
19. The High Court has rightly set aside the said
finding and allowed the appeal of the respondent 6 AIR 1934 All 273
3
Page 34
after careful scrutiny of Exh.B-10. The correctness
of the finding of the High Court in the impugned
judgment is seriously challenged by the learned
senior counsel on behalf of the appellant in this
appeal. We have examined this contention, after
careful perusal of the contents of Exh.B-10. In our
considered view, the contents of the report as stated
by the team of doctors do not support the case of the
appellant that the respondent is suffering from a
serious case of schizophrenia, in order to grant the
decree of divorce under Section 13(1) (iii) of the
Act. The report states that the respondent, although
suffering from ‘illness of schizophrenic type’, does
not show symptoms of psychotic illness at present and
has responded well to the treatment from the acute
phases and her symptoms are fairly under control with
the medication which had been administered to her.
It was further stated that if there is good
compliance with treatment coupled with good social
3
Page 35
and family support, a schizophrenic patient can
continue their marital relationship. In view of the
aforesaid findings and reasons recorded, we have to
hold that the patient is not suffering from the
symptoms of schizophrenia as detailed above.
20. We are of the view that the High Court in
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction has rightly
come to a different conclusion that the respondent is
not suffering from the ailment of schizophrenia or
incurable unsoundness of mind. Further, the High
Court has rightly rejected the finding of the trial
court which is based on exh.B-10 and other
documentary and oral evidence by applying the ratio
laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Narain
Gupta vs. Rameshwari Gupta referred to supra. A
pertinent point to be taken into consideration is
that the respondent had not only completed MBBS but
also did a post graduate diploma in Medicine and was
3
Page 36
continuously working as a Government Medical Officer
and had she been suffering from any serious kind of
mental disorder, particularly, acute type of
schizophrenia, it would have been impossible for her
to work in the said post. The appellant-husband
cannot simply abandon his wife because she is
suffering from sickness. Therefore, the High Court
allowed both the CMAs and dismissed O.P. No. 203/2000
filed by the appellant for divorce and allowed O.P.
No.1/99 filed by the respondent for restitution of
conjugal rights wherein the High Court granted decree
of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the
respondent.
21. It is thus clear that the respondent, even if she
did suffer from schizophrenia, is in a much better
health condition at present. Therefore, this Court
cannot grant the dissolution of marriage on the basis
of one spouse's illness. The appellant has not proved
3
Page 37
the fact of mental disorder of the respondent with
reference to the allegation made against her that she
has been suffering from schizophrenia by producing
positive and substantive evidence on record and on
the other hand, it has been proved that the
respondent is in much better health condition and
does not show signs of schizophrenia as per the most
recent medical report from NIMHANS, as deposed by PW-
4 in his evidence before the trial court.
22. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the firm
view that the findings and reasons recorded in
setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial
court is neither erroneous nor does it suffer from
error in law which warrants our interference and
calls for setting aside the impugned judgment and
decree of the first appellate court. Therefore, this
Court cannot interfere with the impugned judgment of
the High Court as the same is well-reasoned and based
3
Page 38
on cogent reasoning of facts and evidence on record
and accordingly, we answer point no.4 in favour of
the respondent.
23. Under Hindu law, marriage is an institution, a
meeting of two hearts and minds and is something that
cannot be taken lightly. In the Vedic period, the
sacredness of the marriage tie was repeatedly
declared; the family ideal was decidedly high and it
was often realised7. In Vedic Index I it is stated
that “The high value placed on the marriage is shown
by the long and striking hymn”. In Rig Veda, X, 85;
“Be, thou, mother of heroic children, devoted to the
Gods, Be, thou, Queen in thy father-in-law’s
household. May all the Gods unite the hearts of us
“two into one” as stated in Justice Ranganath Misra’s
7 Vedic Index, I, 484,485; CHI,I,89 as in Ranganath Misra J. Revised.,
Mayne’s Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage, Fifteenth Edition, 2003, Bharat
Law House at p.97
3
Page 39
‘Mayne’s Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage’8. Marriage
is highly revered in India and we are a Nation that
prides itself on the strong foundation of our
marriages, come hell or high water, rain or sunshine.
Life is made up of good times and bad, and the bad
times can bring with it terrible illnesses and
extreme hardships. The partners in a marriage must
weather these storms and embrace the sunshine with
equanimity. Any person may have bad health, this is
not their fault and most times, it is not within
their control, as in the present case, the
respondent was unwell and was taking treatment for
the same. The illness had its fair share of problems.
Can this be a reason for the appellant to abandon her
and seek dissolution of marriage after the child is
born out of their union? Since the child is now a
grown up girl, her welfare must be the prime
8 Fifteenth Edition, 2003, Bharat Law House at p.97
3
Page 40
consideration for both the parties. In view of the
foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the two
parties in this case must reconcile and if the
appellant so feels that the respondent is still
suffering, then she must be given the right
treatment. The respondent must stick to her treatment
plan and make the best attempts to get better. It is
not in the best interest of either the respondent or
her daughter who is said to be of adolescent age for
grant of a decree of dissolution of marriage as
prayed for by the appellant. Hence, the appeal is
liable to be dismissed.
24. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and uphold the judgment of the High Court in not granting a
decree of divorce and allowing the petition for
restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, we grant a
4
Page 41
decree for restitution of conjugal rights under
Section 9 of the Act in favour of the respondent.
…………………………………………………………J. [G.S. SINGHVI]
…………………………………………………………J. [V. GOPALA GOWDA]
New Delhi, September 17, 2013
4