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