Judgments on mental disorder by Supreme court & High courts : Degree of Mental Illness

Degree of Mental Illness


• Ajitrai Shivprasad Mehta vs. Bai Vasumati
• Bani Devi vs. A.K. Banerjee
• Usha Gupta vs. Santosh Kumar Pahadiya
• Krishna Bhat vs. Srimathi
• Smt Pravati Mishra and Another vs. Jagadnanda Mishra and Another
• Smt. Rita Roy vs. Sitesh Chandra Bhadra Roy
• R. Lakshmi Narayan vs. Santhi
Ajitrai Shivprasad Mehta vs. Bai Vasumati
Filed under: Sections 5(ii), 10(1)(e), 11, 12, 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872
Appellant: Ajitrai Shivprasad Mehta
Respondent: Bai Vasumati
Citation: AIR 1969 Gujarat 48 (V 56 C 10)
Court: In the High Court of Gujarat
Judge: J.B. Mehta
This is an appeal filed by Ajitrai Shivprasad Mehta against the order of the Trial Court
dismissing his petition for annulment of his marriage. He had filed the petition on the
grounds that his wife was "mentally unstable" and was unable to lead a normal
married life.
Facts
Ajitrai Shivprasad Mehta, a person with hearing and speech impairment married
Vasumati Bai according to Hindu rites. He stated that he had relied on the
representations made by his wife's father to his father.
After the marriage Vasumati came to live with Ajitrai who discovered that her
"mental condition was defective" and that she was unable to lead a normal married
life. He claimed that he was unaware of this prior to the marriage and that his wife's
mental condition was incurable. Therefore he claimed that he was entitled to
annulment of his marriage or to a divorce.
Vasumati however denied these claims and stated that the marriage was not based
just on her father's representations as there had been opportunities prior to their
marriage when Ajitrai had met her and talked to her.
Vasumati's case was that she is not 'mentally defective' and that this was a ploy on
her husband and her in-law's part. According to her, they had been taunting her for
not being able to bear a child after several years of marriage and that the present
petition was filed so that Ajitrai could remarry.
Arguments made on behalf of Ajitrai
It was argued that -
• The expression 'unsoundness of mind' has a wider connotation and includes
feeble-minded persons and persons of dull intellect who would not be able to
lead a full matrimonial life as other rational persons would do. Such a wide
interpretation would include Vasumati as well who was mentally defective and
the defect was congenital.
• Vasumati was incapable of managing herself or her affairs, including problems
of society and of married life, and such incapacity in her case being
congenital, was necessarily permanent and incurable.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that Vasumati did not suffer from such mental infirmity that
would make her an 'idiot' or a 'lunatic'. The Court responded to the certificate of
'incurably unsound mind' given by the psychiatrist on which Ajitrai's lawyer relied
heavily on. The Court questioned the validity on several grounds.
• First, the doctor admitted that he had met Vasumati only once and that too
without any clinical examination.
• Further, the doctor had declared that Vasumati was a 'low-grade moron'
pronouncing that she would not be able to carry out the usual household
duties; he however admitted that it was difficult to reach a conclusion about
the degree of mental deficiency without a clinical examination, which takes
the past history into account. The doctor also admitted that without this there
is a likelihood of arriving at an incorrect diagnosis.
• Finally, when questioned by the Court, the doctor stated that he would not
call a person who he thinks is a 'low grade moron' as an idiot. He also added
that Vasumati did not qualify either as an idiot or as a lunatic.
The Court observed that though Vasumati was slow in understanding complicated
questions, she was able to give relevant answers to simple questions and stood the
test of a searching cross-examination. Merely because she had a weak memory of
the roads and places or names of relatives, she was not of 'unsound mind'.
The evidence made it clear that Vasumati was able to manage herself and all her
affairs in her own simple way hence would also be able to cope with the obligations
of a married life. Therefore, the "mental defect" was not of such a degree or extent
that made her incapable of managing herself or her affairs.
This also indicated that she was not a person of 'unsound mind'. The judge also
observed that when the argument of 'unsoundness of mind' is used as a ground for
divorce, it is essential that this diagnosis be proved beyond reasonable doubt to
satisfy the court. And since Ajitrai had not been able to do this, he dismissed the
case.
The Trial Court held that Ajitrai had failed to establish that Vasumati was of 'unsound
mind' at the time of marriage or that her mental condition was incurable. He was
also held guilty of delay as a result of which his petition would not have been granted
even if the grounds had been established. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Held:The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Sections Referred:
• Sections 5, 10(1), 11, 12(1), 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
• Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Cases Referred:
• Whysall vs. Whysall, 1959 -3 All ER 389, 1960 P 52
• Titli vs. Alfred Robert Jones, ILR 56 All 428, AIR 1934 All 273
• Pancha vs. Emperor, AIR 1932 All 233, 33 Cri LJ 714
• Harrod vs. Harrod, (1854) 1 K & j 4, 2 WR 612
• Daniel McNaghten's case, (1843) 10 Cl. & F 200, 8 ER 718
Quotes from the Judgment:
"A person whose mental defect does not reach the state of insanity known as idiocy
or lunacy can enter into a valid marriage tie and it would be absurd to dissolve nullify
the marriage based on a wide interpretation of 'unsoundness of mind'. Feebleminded
persons or persons of dull intellect in whose cases mental infirmity are not
serious enough to make them incapable of knowing the nature and consequences of
marriage cannot be considered as person of "unsound mind" in the legal sense."
Top
Bani Devi vs. A.K. Banerjee
Filed Under:: Section 13(1)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appellant: Smt Bani Devi
Respondent: A.K. Banerjee
Citation: AIR 1972 DELHI 59
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judge: V.D. Misra
This is an appeal by Bani Devi against the decree for divorce that was passed on the
grounds that she was of unsound mind.
Facts
Bani Devi and A.K. Banerjee had an arranged marriage. According to Banerjee, on
the first night of marriage at about mid-night, Bani had shouted and yelled. Her face
had become distorted and her eyeballs had gone in different directions. Her body
was cramping and she was foaming from her mouth. However she regained
consciousness after some time.
The following morning Bani's brother and a doctor were sent for. Her brother
informed Banerjee that such attacks were transitory and that Bani had medicines
with her, which would be helpful. Her brother also gave a brief history to the doctor.
The doctor informed Banerjee that Bani was suffering from epilepsy and advised him
that she should be put in a hospital.
Banerjee also stated that Bani had suffered these strokes for a duration ranging from
15 minutes to 45 minutes. Sometimes their frequency would be two a day and once
she even suffered as many as 12 strokes in 8 hours. Banerjee filed a case for divorce
and was granted the decree on grounds of Bani's unsoundness of mind. She then
filed the present appeal against the decree for divorce.
Bani's brother was called as a witness and he admitted that Banerjee had called him
to his house on the day following the marriage. However he described his sister's
illness as a little bit of headache. Bani contended that she had suffered from some
fits because of her father's death but she also claimed that she had recovered from
them. She denied that she had suffered from any such fits in her husband's house on
the first day of her marriage.
She further stated that she only had headache and also denied that she had been
taking medicines. She also admitted that she had been taken to the doctor the day
after the marriage and had also been admitted in Shadhara Hospital. However,
according to her she had not suffered from any fits during her stay in the hospital.
Observations of the Court
The Court made reference to several relevant acts and analyzed the relevant
evidence. On this basis the Court reached the conclusion that even though the
evidence presented by both the parties was bound to be prejudiced, it was clear that
Bani had suffered from a fit on the night of the marriage and that fit was of such an
alarming nature that her brother had been sent for in the morning and he had taken
her to a doctor. It was also evident to the Court that Bani was in the habit of taking
medicines to overcome such fits.
The medical evidence consisted of various doctors who had examined Bani at some
point. One doctor, a practicing neurosurgeon, stated that her brother had brought
her to him and he had diagnosed her to be suffering from epilepsy with some
associated mental deterioration. He however, was not able to say whether this
disease could be cured or not.
Another doctor, who was working as a psychiatrist in Shadhara hospital and had
treated her, claimed that when she was admitted she was suffering from mental
deficiency along with epileptic psychosis.
According to him, mental deficiency was incurable and epileptic fits of a violent
nature could be controlled to a variable extent but they could not be completely
cured. Bani was discharged after a period of about 3 months on the grounds that
"whatever was possible to be done had been done".
At the time of discharge her epileptic fits had been controlled to some extent. The
doctor also stated that her disorder was congenital. The doctor had discharged her a
few days before she finally left, but since nobody came to take her, she stayed in the
hospital for a few more days. He further claimed that Bani was still having epileptic
fits and fits of violence. He was not cross-examined regarding the sickness or its
nature.
Banerjee also produced the Medical Superintendent and Senior Psychiatrist of the
Shadhara Hospital. On the basis of the records he stated that Bani suffered from
epileptic fits with episodic attacks of violence. He further mentioned that if regular
treatment was given then these fits could be reduced in severity and frequency.
When cross-examined he stated that he had been observing Bani during his weekly
rounds. He further stated that he had recommended discharging her because she
had shown improvement and could be managed at home.
He further stated that Bani's intelligence quotient was found to be 65 and she
therefore had to be put in the category of a 'moron'. He also stated that the patient
was not unsound but during her fits of violence she was of unsound mind. Finally he
added that her IQ at this stage could not be improved.
The Court observed that both the doctors were unanimous in the belief that Bani was
prone to having fits and during these fits she would be violent towards others and
herself. Her discharge from the hospital had been on the criteria that whatever could
be done for her had been done and improvement had been observed in the severity
and frequency of her symptoms.
After examining other similar medical evidence, the Court concluded that Bani was a
person of unsound mind since she was not capable of managing herself or her
affairs. The Court also opined that Bani's unsoundness of mind was incurable and she
had been in this state since her marriage. The appeal was thereby dismissed.
Sections Referred:
• Section 13(1)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Cases Referred:
• (1964) 1964-3 All ER 232 = (1964) 3 WLR 935, Robinson vs. Robinson
• (1961) 1961-3 All ER 1105 = (1961) 1 WLR 1481, Chapman vs. Chapman
• (1959) 1959-3 All ER 389 = 1959-3 WLR 592, Whysall vs. Whysall
Top
Usha Gupta vs. Santosh Kumar Pahadiya
Filed Under: Section 13(1) (iii) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appellant: Usha Gupta
Respondent: Santosh Kumar Pahadiya
Citation: I (1996) DMC 90
Court: In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Judges: T.S. Doabia
This is an appeal by Usha Gupta against the decree for divorce passed by the District
Judge of Gwalior. Her husband Santosh had filed a petition for divorce on the
grounds that Usha had been suffering from a mental disorder from the first day of
marriage.
Facts
Usha Gupta and Santosh Kumar got married according to Hindu customs and
traditions. Usha had passed the B.A. Part I examination at the time of marriage.They
lived together for about five years and during this time they had two children - a son
and a daughter.Santosh filed a petition for divorce on the grounds that Usha was
suffering from mental disorder from the first day of marriage. The District Judge,
Gwalior, passed a Decree for divorce. Against this decree Usha filed this appeal.
In his petition, Santosh had stated that Usha had been suffering from a mental
disorder, which was not curable. He further stated that Usha's behavior had not been
normal from the first day of marriage.
It was alleged that once Usha would start speaking she would go on speaking and
during this period she would also start shrieking, dancing and singing songs. In the
petition it was also stated that she had stayed with her husband for some time and
then she went back to her parent's house.
On account of her abnormal behavior she was taken for treatment to Gwalior and
was treated at Dr. Kale's clinic. It was contended that this treatment led to no
improvement in her condition. Another doctor also treated her and again there was
no improvement.
Electric shocks were also administered to her but instead of improving, her condition
deteriorated after the shocks. It was also elaborated in the petition that Usha would
not stay in the house and would run towards the road. She would break her bangles
and even remove her 'sindoor'.
In the application it was also suggested that there was some improvement in her
condition on account of the treatment and she was taken to her parents' house. She
came back to live with her husband but there was no improvement in her condition.
She would either keep quiet for hours or would go on speaking even to herself.
According to her husband, she would call him either 'Kalua' or 'Joker'. Santosh
reported many such incidents in his application. It was alleged that she had tried to
jump off the roof and once had even attempted to throw her son out of a window.
Based on all this an apprehension was expressed that there was every possibility
that she would either cause injury to herself or to her children. Accordingly it was
pleaded that in the given circumstances, he was entitled to a divorce on grounds of
mental disorder.
Usha denied all the allegations made against her by her husband. In her petition she
stated that they had lived together in a cordial manner. The fact that two children
had been born out of the wedlock was highlighted.
She also contended that she had not been remiss in performing her matrimonial
duties. According to her when she had gone to her husband's house for the first
time, a very unusual incident had taken place.
Some gold ornaments that belonged to some women of her husband's family had
been lost. As a result of this a search had been conducted and Usha's luggage had
also been searched. She was also accused by some members of her husband's family
of stealing the ornaments. It was also suggested that she had brought bad luck to
the family.
This incident had upset her and she had suffered from shock. But soon after this she
had recovered and had started performing her matrimonial duties. She also
highlighted the fact that she had passed her B.A. final exams after her marriage.
Furthermore, it was contended by her that she had been looking after her children
and they were being given proper education.
She also stated that there had been some improvement in her husband's financial
condition and because of this he wanted to get married a second time. She further
stated that the petition of divorce that had been accorded by the lower Court was ill
founded and the Court had not appreciated the factual position.
Observations of the Court
The Court examined several relevant cases and the evidence of the parties and
witnesses. One of the doctors who had examined Usha claimed that she had been
suffering from 'Acute Manic Psychosis' at that time. However, she also stated that
she could not make claims about her condition when the case was being heard.
Another doctor, who claimed to have treated Usha stated that her relatives had
informed her that she used to speak a lot and believed that she possessed a natural
power bestowed on her by Lord Hanumana.
The doctor however further added that she wasn't sure if it was Usha who she had
examined. Other doctors were also examined and one of them was not able to
identify Usha. After observing and analyzing the evidence and relevant sections, the
Court stated that:
• There had been two children from the marriage, and Usha was looking after
them to the best of her ability. It was further opined by the Court that the
allegations made against her during the first day of her marriage could have
possibly upset her. Further it was also opined that she might have been a
feeble-minded person but that did not mean she was suffering from a mental
disorder and was incapable of knowing the nature and consequences of her
actions.
• The Court also held that an inability to handle one's own affairs was an
essential attribute of an incurably unsound person but that could not be said
for her. In order to support this claim the Court referred to her school reports
and her examination results. Furthermore, the Court held that the contention
made by Santosh that it wasn't safe for him or his children to live with Usha
was clearly not borne out by facts.
• Finally, the Court concluded that Santosh had failed to establish the fact that
his wife was suffering from a disease, which was incurable.
The appeal was accordingly allowed and the judgment given by the lower Court was
reversed.
Sections Referred:
• Section 13 (1) (iii), of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Cases Referred:
• (1959) 3 All ER 389
• (1969-1) All ER 539
• AIR 1934 All 273
Top
Krishna Bhat vs. Srimathi
Filed Under: Section 13 (i) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appellant: Krishna Bhat
Respondent: Srimathi
Citation: 1995 AIHC 4330
Court: In the High Court of Karnataka
Judges: P Krishna Moorthy and VP Mohan Kumar
This is an appeal filed by Krishna Bhat against the judgment of the Trial Court
dismissing his petition for divorce from his wife on the ground that she was of
unsound mind.
Facts
Krishna Bhat and Srimathi got married in the year 1980. According to Krishna, he did
not know Srimathi prior to their marriage; a common relative had fixed their
marriage. According to him, he had seen Srimathi for the first time a few days before
the marriage and he had consented to the marriage believing that Srimathi was a
‘normal’ person. He further alleged that after marriage, they lived together for about
2-3 days in his house and during that period Srimathi’s behavior was unusually calm
and showed disclination towards cohabitation.
He believed that this was because of changed atmosphere. Thereafter they went to
visit their relatives and came back. According to Krishna, about a month after the
wedding she suddenly began to display peculiar and aggressive behavior and began
talking incoherently. On one or two occasions she even attempted to run away from
the house and had to be brought back forcefully. He further alleged that she used to
abuse his family members without any reason and had no inclination towards
cohabitation.
Krishna sent for Srimathi’s brother and intended to get appropriate treatment for her
with the hope that her mental condition and attitude would improve. He then took
her to Manipal and she was examined by a lady doctor. According to the doctor,
Srimathi was mentally unsound and she could be kept under control only by
continuous administration of drugs.
The doctor also stated that Srimathi could not be completely cured. At this stage,
Srimathi’s brother, Ramachandra offered to take her to his house and assured
Krishna that she would be completely cured and sent back after treatment. However,
there was no response from them for some time and since he was anxious to know
about the condition of his wife, Krishna went to her house twice but found that her
condition had not improved at all.
Krishna stated that it was not possible for him to stay with Srimathi and on those
grounds filed this petition for divorce.
Srimathi denied all these allegations and offered to go and live with Krishna. She
expressed her willingness to carry out her marital obligations and denied the
allegation that she had any aversion to cohabitation. According to her she had got
herself examined from the doctor to establish that she did not suffer from any illness
as alleged by her husband. She also claimed that she was capable of consummating
her marriage.
After examining the evidence the Trial Court held that Krishna had not made out a
case that his wife was incurably of unsound mind. The Trial Court further held that
Krishna had totally failed to establish that his wife was suffering from any of the
ailments alleged by him. On these grounds the petition for divorce was dismissed.
Krishna then filed this appeal.
Observations of the Court
The Court examined the arguments extended by both the parties and held that
Krishna would have to establish that Srimathi was of incurably unsound mind or he
would have to establish that she suffered continuously or intermittently from mental
disorder of such a kind that he could not be reasonably expected to live with her.
The Court then took into consideration the testimony given by a doctor who had
examined Srimathi. The outpatient record of the hospital in Manipal stated that
Srimathi was suffering from acute schizophrenia and the doctor had prescribed
certain drugs for her. The Court then referred to the literature available on
schizophrenia.
Based on these reasons the Court held that Krishna had established that Srimathi on
the date of marriage had been suffering from a mental disorder of such kind and to
such an extent that he could not reasonably be expected to live with her. The appeal
was accordingly allowed and the Court held that their marriage would stand
dissolved by a decree of divorce.
Sections Referred:
• Section 13 (i) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Cases Referred:
• Ram Narain Gupta vs. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta, AIR 1988 SC 2260
Top
Smt Pravati Mishra and Another vs. Jagadnanda Mishra and Another
Filed Under: Section 13 (i) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appellant: Smt. Pravati Mishra and another
Respondent: Jagadnanda Mishra and another
Citation: 1995 AIHC 3434
Court: In the High Court of Orissa
Judge: A Pasayat
Facts
Jagadnanda married Pravati according to Hindu rites. According to him, after their
marriage, he discovered that Pravati was suffering from a mental disorder of such a
kind and to such an extent that he could not reasonably be expected to live with her.
According to him, her mind had not developed completely, she was suffering from a
psychopathic disorder, and that she had an intelligence of a three-year-old child.
Jagadnanda further alleged that Pravati’s father deliberately suppressed her mental
condition from him. After marriage when Pravati came to his house, she behaved like
a child and called him ‘bhayia’. He further contended that she had no sexual urges
and sometimes went around the house stark naked. Because of such abnormal
behavior, the marriage between them was not consummated. After two months of
marriage, he filed a petition for dissolution marriage. Pravati was also charged of
being guilty of cruelty towards him.
Pravati and her father then filed a joint application and denied all the allegations
made by Jagadnanda. It was submitted that Pravati did not suffer from any mental
disorder but she had subnormal intelligence to a minor degree because of the fact
that she had no schooling as she had suffered from a viral infection when she was
young.
It was further stated that she was capable of having a sexual relation with her
husband and had in fact had it with him on many occasions. It was alleged that
Jagadnanda wanted to extract dowry to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh and that was the
reason why this petition had been filed. A prayer was also made for the return of
certain articles and for maintenance of Rs. 500 per month to Pravati since she had
no source of income.
The Lower Court Judge evaluated the evidence in the case and held that the
marriage of Jagadnanda and Pravati had not been consummated due to Pravati’s
mental disorder and therefore Jagadnanda was entitled to a decree for dissolution of
marriage. It was further held that Jagadnanda was liable to pay Rs. 1200/- per
quarter to Pravati as maintenance.
Pravati then filed this appeal challenging the decree of dissolution of marriage passed
by the Subordinate Judge. Jagadnanda also questioned the correctness of the
quantum of maintenance as awarded on the ground that since he was unemployed
the quantum fixed by the Judge was irrational.
Observations of the Court
The Court referred to the various provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and examined
the arguments extended by both the parties. According to the Court in the objections
filed by Pravati, it was specifically mentioned that her intelligence was subnormal.
The Subordinate Judge had also referred to the evidence of various psychiatrists who
had examined her.
According to them, her IQ was below 50% after the age of 21 years and her mental
disorder was incurable. She was also examined in the Court and she was unable to
answer the question that by what number was 125 bigger than 115. According to the
Court, the Subordinate Judge had rightly concluded that Jagadnanda was entitled to
a decree of divorce.
The Court then took up the other aspect of the appeal, which dealt with the quantum
fixed for maintenance, which was to be paid by Jagadnanda to Pravati. According to
the Court, every able-bodied husband was obligated to maintain his wife. However,
no arithmetic rule could be adopted in fixing the amount of maintenance. The Court
held that it could find no scope for interference in the appeal filed by Jagadnanda.
Both the appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Sections Referred:
• Section 13 (i) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Cases Referred:
• Whyshall vs. Whyshall, (1959) 3 All E.R. 139
Top
Smt. Rita Roy vs. Sitesh Chandra Bhadra Roy
Filed Under: Section 13 (1) (iii), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appellant: Smt. Rita Roy
Respondent: Sitesh Chandra Bhadra Roy
Citation: AIR 1982 Calcutta 138
Court: In the High Court of Calcutta
Judges: Banerjee and B.N. Maitra
Facts
Sitesh Chandra married Rita Roy according to Hindu rites. The marriage was
consummated and after a year a daughter was born. Sitesh then filed a petition for
divorce on the grounds that Rita was mentally abnormal to such an extent that he
could not be expected to live with her.
According to Sitesh, after marriage, Rita started displaying signs of abnormal
behavior. She also attempted to commit suicide. Sitesh further contended that after
observing her abnormal behavior he took her to the Mental Hospital for treatment.
Thereafter she was also admitted in the hospital for some time.
In order to support these contentions, several witnesses were also examined. One
witness was a doctor who had allegedly examined Rita. He testified that Rita suffered
from Schizophrenia. Yet, in his prescriptions, there was no mention of the same.
Rita then filed a written statement in which she denied all of the above allegations.
According to her, she had passed her higher secondary examination before the
wedding. But after her marriage her husband and his family had treated her with
cruelty because she gave birth to a daughter.
She also alleged that she had been forced to abort a child and this had affected her
health quite adversely. She had thus gone to the Mental Hospital for treatment after
which she had been declared fit
The District Judge had examined the case and had opined that Rita was suffering
from a mental disorder that included Schizophrenia of such a kind that Sitesh could
not reasonably be expected to live with her. Accordingly the District Judge had
passed the decree of divorce. Rita Roy then filed the present appeal against the said
order.
Observations of the Court
The Court examined the evidence extended by both the parties. The Court also
considered the fact that Sitesh or his mother had never made a mention of the fact
that Rita’s behavior was of dangerous nature or that she became aggressive or
abusive. The lawyer on behalf of Rita had also pointed out that Sitesh had made a
plea for divorce on the grounds that Rita was suffering from Schizophrenia but the
evidence that he had put forth showed that she was suffering from mental
aberration, not Schizophrenia.
The Court took account of this and opined that on the basis of the evidence given, it
could not be concluded that Rita had been suffering intermittently from a disorder of
such an extent that Sitesh could not be expected to live with her. And therefore
there was no sufficient ground to grant the decree of divorce. The Court then made
references to several previous cases that had been mentioned by Rita’s lawyer to
support his case.
On the basis of the aforementioned arguments, the Court held that Rita had only
been suffering intermittently from a slight mental disorder. Accordingly, the Court
held that Sitesh should have been more tolerant of his wife’s condition instead of
filing a suit for divorce seven years after marriage. The Court concluded that the
decisions arrived at by the Additional District Judge were erroneous and the appeal
was thus allowed.
Sections Referred:
• Section 13 (1) (iii), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
R. Lakshmi Narayan v. Santhi
Filed Under: Sections 5 (ii)(a)(b) & 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955
Appellant: R.Lakshmi Narayan
Respondent: Santhi
Citation: AIR 2001 SC 2110
Court: In the Supreme Court of India
Judges: D.P. Mohapatra & U.C. Banerjee
Facts
R.Lakshmi Narayan and Santhi married according to Hindu rites and customs. The
marriage was arranged after Lakshmi Naryan met Santhi and spoke to her. After the
wedding, the couple stayed together for 25 days and started staying separately
thereafter. Following this, Lakshmi Narayan filed a petition for annulment of their
marriage on the ground that Santhi suffered from chronic and incurable mental
disorder and was not in a fit mental state to lead a married life.
Lakshmi Narayan contended that on the day of the marriage, Santhi refused to have
cohabitation on the grounds that she was suffering from mental disorder from
childhood and that she was forced into the marriage by her parents.
He further alleged that all his attempts to cure her ailment through treatment had
failed and under the said circumstances, he filed a petition for annulment of their
marriage.
Santhi denied all the allegations and stated that she and her husband were not able
to lead a normal married life only on account of her husband’s refusal to continue
living with her.
She alleged that Lakshmi Narayan was interested in marrying a second time so that
he could procure more dowry. The Trial Court held that Lakshmi Narayan had failed
to establish that Santhi was suffering from any mental disorder or that there had not
been any sexual relationship, and that Santhi was not fit to lead a married life On
these grounds petition was dismissed.
Lakshmi Narayan filed an appeal against the order of the Trial Court. The Appellate
Court held that the Trial Court had failed to look into the medical evidence produced
before the Court.
The Appellate Court therefore reversed the order of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the
said order, Santhi filed an appeal in the High Court. The High Court reversed the
order of the Appellate Court and restored the order of the Trial Court. Thereafter,
Lakshmi Narayan filed the present appeal.
Observations of the Court
After analyzing the relevant provisions under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court held
that a petition for annulment on the ground of mental disorder must depend on a
question of degree of the defect in order to rebut the validity of the marriage.
The responsibility of proving that the present case fell within the purview of the
provisions of law was on the spouse filing the petition. Bearing the above principle in
mind, the Court proceeded to examine whether Lakshmi Narayan had succeeded in
establishing the case for declaring the marriage null and void on the ground of
mental incapacity of his wife at the time of marriage.
It was further observed that it was not the case of Lakshmi Narayan that Santhi was
incapable of giving valid consent for marriage in consequence of unsoundness of
mind. From the facts found by the Appellate Court that allowed Lakshmi Narayan’s
petition it could not be held that Santhi had been suffering from mental disorder of
such a kind or extent as to be unfit for marriage and procreation of children.
Further, to brand the wife as unfit for procreation of children because of mental
disorder it needs to be established that the ailment suffered by her was of such a
kind or such an extent that it was impossible for her to lead a normal married life.
It was also observed that mere giving a finding by the Appellate Court that Santhi
was suffering from some mental disorder and that she had not cohabited with her
husband during the period they stayed together was not sufficient to comply with the
condition prescribed under law.
For the above reasons, this Court held that the High Court could not be faulted for
dismissing the petition of Lakshmi Narayan. Accordingly, the Court did not interfere
with the order of the High Court and dismissed the petition.
Sections Referred:
• Section 5 (ii)(a)(b) & 12(1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955
Top
Acts in Disability
• The Mental Health Act
• The RCI Act
• The PWD Act
• The National Trust Act
• National policy for persons with disabilities
Useful Information
• Government Services
• Facilities & Benefits
• Financial Assistance
• Registration of Societies
• RCI Bridge Course
• Guidelines for Space Standards
Disability India Journal
• 2006 Edition
• April '04 Edition
National Level Institutes
• NIMH
• NIHH
• NIOH
• NIVH
• IPH