Unsoundeness of mind concealed at the time of marriage

Unsoundeness of mind concealed at the time of marriage

Smt. Kiran Bala Asthana and another vs. Bhaire
Prasad Srivastava
Filed under: Sections 12 (1) (c) and 5(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995
Appellant: Smt. Kiran Bala Asthana and another
Respondent: Bhaire Prasad Srivastava
Citation: AIR 1982 Allahabad 242
Court: In the High Court of Allahabad
Judge: Deoki Nandan
Facts
Kiran Bala filed this appeal against the decree dissolving her marriage with Bhaire Prasad
Srivastava by a decree of divorce under the Hindu marriage Act on the ground that she
was of an incurably unsound mind. Her husband, Bhaire had filed an appeal in a lower
Court and had claimed the relief of declaration that their marriage was null and void.
The Trial Court had also recorded the finding that the consent of the husband to the
marriage was obtained by fraud because he was not informed of the fact that Kiran’s
former marriage had been declared null on the ground that she was of unsound mind at
the time of marriage.
At the outset of the hearing of the case, it was suggested that Kiran was of sound mind
and it was impossible to say that she was incurably of unsound mind. She had applied for
a medical examination. After considering the material placed before the Court, the Court
had referred Kiran’s case to the Lucknow Medical College for examination and
observation.
Dr. Prabhat Sitholey, acting for Dr. J K Trivedi had prepared a report. This report stated
that as such Kiran did not seem to have any mental disorder, which may result in
abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on her part. It was further stated
that she was suffering from mild neurotic depression, which required medical treatment.
On receiving this report, the Court made an attempt to bring about reconciliation between
the parties. On the Court’s persuasion it was agreed that Kiran would get herself treated
at the Lucknow Medical College and obtain and submit a report of her mental condition
after three months. The Court further directed that it would be upto Bhaire to look after
Kiran’s treatment to the best of his ability and inclination in order to assure himself that
her disease was in fact curable and cured, or otherwise.
Thereafter, Bhaire agreed to take Kiran back with him as a measure of trial in order to
make sure that she was free from the disorder he had complained about. Kiran was also
willing to go with him and the Court ordered that after three months this appeal would be
taken up. Liberty was however given to the parties to apply to the Court for any
directions or orders in the meanwhile.
However, about a month later, Bhaire appeared with Kiran in the Court for a direction
that Kiran’s parents may take her away to look after her since he found it impossible to
do so in view of her mental condition. Notice was served to Kiran’s lawyer and her father
appeared in the Court. From Kiran’s conduct and appearance the Court made a note of
the fact that she was not keeping fit in those days. It was clear that she was of an unsound
mind.
The Court accordingly directed that Kiran should stay with her father for the time being
and a date was fixed for the hearing of the appeal. Thereafter, Dr. JK Trivedi of the
Lucknow Medical College was summoned in the Court as a witness in order to elucidate
the facts and to give his expert opinion about Kiran’s mental condition.
On the issue of the earlier report, Dr. Trivedi stated that he himself had examined Kiran
earlier but Dr. Prabhat Sitholey submitted the report because he had gone for leave.
Before going on leave, he had examined Kiran on just three occasions and had opined
that she was suffering from residual schizophrenia.
He further stated that he had examined the records of her treatment and the diagnosis was
that she was suffering from schizophrenia. According to him, this disease was curable if
the treatment was continuous and prolonged provided she stayed in a congenial
environment.
Kiran’s lawyer contended that the finding of the Trial Court was based entirely on
documents produced from the earlier case between Kiran and her first husband, DP
Asthana. These documents showed that Kiran was an ‘idiot’ at the time of marriage with
DP Asthana and it was on this basis that the marriage between them had been annulled.
According to the lawyer, this evidence was inadmissible and could not be referred to at
all since it was irrelevant. According to him Section 13 (1) (iii) required that the mental
disorder must not only be incurable, but should also have existed at the time of marriage.
According to the lawyer there was no evidence to show that Kiran was of an unsound
mind or was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of her marriage and that the
mental disorder was such that it could not be cured.
On the other hand the main argument raised by Bhaire’s lawyer was that Bhaire should
be granted a decree of nullity of marriage on the ground that his consent for marriage was
obtained by fraud. The fraud was that the fact of the annulment of Kiran’s earlier
marriage with Dr. DP Asthana was concealed from him. According to the lawyer, if
Bhaire had known that Kiran’s first marriage had been annulled on the ground that she
was mentally ill, he would never have married her.
In response to this argument Kiran’s lawyer contended that it was not Kiran’s or her
parents’ duty to go out of their way to inform Bhaire of this fact. He himself should have
found out whatever he wanted to know. He had known Kiran for some time before the
marriage and it was on account of her good looks that he had agreed to marry her.
According to the lawyer, if Bhaire had not made any further enquiries it was not for
Kiran or her parents to tell him why Kiran’s earlier marriage had been dissolved.
Observations of the Court
The Court examined the arguments and held that the facts regarding the nullity of Kiran’s
previous marriage on grounds of unsoundness of mind had been concealed from Bhaire.
Accordingly the marriage between the parties was fit to be annulled by a decreeof nullity
under section 12 (1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Court also held that even though it was not necessary to establish whether or not
Kiran was suffering intermittently or continuously from a mental disorder of a serious
degree, the facts and circumstances of the case clearly showed that Bhaire could not be
expected to live with her since she was suffering from schizophrenia, which was of a
serious degree.
Held: The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Sections Referred:
• Sections 12 (1) (c) and 5(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995
Top
R. Sankarnarayanan vs. Anandhavalli
Filed under: Sections 12 (1) (b), (c) and 5 (ii) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appellant: R. Sankarnarayanan
Respondent: Anandhavalli
Citation: AIR 1998 Madras 198
Court: In the High Court of Madras
Judge: S. M. Abdul Wahab
Facts
R. Sankarnarayanan had filed a petition in the District Court for the dissolution of his
marriage with Anandhavalli on the grounds of mental disorder. According to him, he had
not known anything about Anandhavalli’s family prior to the marriage and during the
marriage ceremony, Anandhvalli’s father had concealed the fact that his daughter
suffered from recurrent attacks of insanity. Thus, Sankarnarayanan alleged that his
consent for the marriage had been obtained by fraud. He further stated that their wedding
reception also could not be carried out because of Anandhavalli’s behavior, which was
strange, uncommon and odd.
After the wedding, Sankarnarayanan stated that Anandhavalli did not take any food, nor
did she talk to anybody. Her relatives and family members were the only ones who took
care of her and administered some medicine to her without consulting the doctor.
According to Sankarnarayanan, a local exorcist was also brought in and he smeared white
ashes on Anandhvalli’s forehead to drive out the evil spirit that was haunting her.
However, when she was taken to Sankarnarayanan’s house, her behavior became violent.
When questioned, her father confessed that he had concealed the fact that his daughter
was under treatment for recurrent attacks of insanity. After learning this,
Sankarnarayanan sent a notice for the dissolution of the marriage.
In the counter, Anandhavalli denied these allegations and contended that she was not
suffering from insanity or any mental disease. According to her, the marriage was
conducted in the presence of two advocates who were Sankarnarayanan’s friend s.
She further submitted she had been upset since her mother had suffered from a paralytic
attack and also because she was leaving her home. According to her, the treatment had
not been for any mental disease but only for the grief that she was experiencing.
After examining the evidence, the Trial Court found that Anandhavalli was suffering
from acute schizophrenia and had suppressed the material facts regarding the disease she
was suffering from prior to her marriage. Accordingly, the Trial Court allowed the
petition for the dissolution of the marriage.
However, on appeal, the District Court reversed the order of the Trial Court
Sankarnarayanan then filed the present appeal challenging the order of the District Court.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that the District Court had approached the case from a very narrow
perspective and had concluded that Anandhavalli was not suffering from Schizophrenia
at any time. However, it was held that this conclusion of the District Court was contrary
to the evidence available on record.
Based on the opinion of doctors, the Court held that Anandhavalli was indeed suffering
from Schizophrenia, which was bound to recur at any time and her behavior could not be
deemed as normal. Hence, it was held that there was ample evidence to prove that
Anandhavalli was ill.
Further, the Court held that there was no evidence to show that the facts about
Anandhavalli’s mental state had been disclosed to Sankarnarayanan’s parents or to him at
the time of marriage. Thus after a thorough scrutiny of the evidence, both oral and
documentary, it was also concluded that the fact that Anandhavalli was afflicted with
Schizophrenia was suppressed and Sankarnarayanan’s consent for the marriage had been
obtained by fraud.
For these reasons, the appeal was allowed and the decree of the District Court was set
aside.
Sections Referred:
• Sections 12 (1) (b), (c) and 5 (ii) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Cases Referred:
• Rajinder Singh vs. Pomilla, AIR 1987 Delhi 285
• Mini vs. James Koshy Alexander (1994) 2Mad LJ 487
• Kanchan Devi vs. Promod Kumar Mittal, AIR 1996 SC 3192
• Jayaradha vs. A.N. Mahalingam, (1994) 2Mad LW 690
• Shanker Ram vs. Mrs. Sukanya, (1997) 2 Mad LW 371
• Rajagopalan vs. Usha Rajagopalan, (1998) 1 Mad LJ 181
C.J.Joy v. Shilly
Filed under: Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act
Appellant: C.J.Joy
Respondent: Shilly
Citation: 1995 A I H C 6313
Court: In the High Court of Kerala
Judges: P.V.Narayanan Nambiar
This is a petition filed by C.J.Joy for declaring his marriage to Shilly null and void on the
grounds that she was impotent and suffered from mental disorder during the time of and
after the marriage.
Facts
C.J.Joy and Shilly married in a church in Kottappady, Kerala. According to Joy, Shilly
and her parents had made a representation before marriage stating that she was of good
physical and mental health. Based on such a representation Joy had agreed to marry her.
He then claimed that during the marriage and immediately after it Shilly had shown
serious symptoms of psychotic disorder. Both of them had lived together at her place and
during this period, they has been unable to have intercourse due to her mental disorder.
Thereafter, they left for Joy’s house where they lived together for few more days. During
her stay there, Shilly had allegedly tried to commit suicide following which she was
treated for mental disorder as an in-patient in a hospital for about 60 days during
intermittent periods. He also claimed that all his attempts to have sexual intercourse with
her had failed due to her frigidity.
Subsequently, Joy had approached the Eparchial Tribunal for declaring his marriage null
and void and later he also got the order affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. He was
however advised to procure a decree of nullity from the Court as well. Therefore, he filed
the present petition in the Court seeking directions for annulment of his marriage.
Shilly also filed her objections to the petition. She denied all the allegations regarding her
mental disorder, attempt to suicide etc. made by Joy. On the other hand, she alleged that
after the marriage Joy and his family members had ill treated her which had caused her
some mental disorders and that the marriage had not been consummated because he had
never taken interest in cohabitation and for the above reason she asked the Court to
dismiss the petition.
Several family members, psychiatrists and doctors were examined as witnesses to prove
that she was suffering from mental disorder during the time of and after the marriage.
Witnesses were also examined from her side who stated that she was fine before marriage
and that she started developing signs of mental disorder only after marriage.
Observations of the Court:
After examining the relevant documents, the Court looked into several issues such as
whether Shilly was impotent and ‘lunatic’ at the time of marriage, and if the consent for
marriage had been obtained by fraud. The Court observed that it was admitted by both the
parties that the marriage was not consummated and the evidence showed that Shilly was
responsible for this.
After examining several previous judgments and evidence, the Court held that continuous
refusal of the wife to have the marriage consummated could be perceived as impotency.
Further, it was held that she was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of marriage
and thus it was held that the consent had been obtained by fraud.
For the above reasons, the Court allowed the petition and declared the marriage between
Joy and Shilly null and void on the ground that she was impotent at the time of marriage
and at the time of filing the case and that she was ‘lunatic’ at the time of marriage and
that the consent for marriage had been obtained by fraud.
Sections Referred:
• Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act
Sarah Syla vs. Ivan Thomas George and Others
Filed under: Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act
Appellant: Sarah Syla
Respondent: Ivan Thomas George and Others
Citation: 1995 A I H C 788
Court: In the High Court of Madras
Judge: Srinivasan, Raju & A.R. Lakshmanan
Facts
Sarah Syla was married to Ivan Thomas George. She claimed that Ivan had been cruel to
her and that he was violent and abusive without any reason. Further, she claimed that
respondents 2&3 (names not mentioned) had suppressed the facts about Ivan’s mental
condition (paranoid schizophrenia & chronic maniac depression) and the information
about the treatment meted out to him. The District Judge had allowed Sarah’s petition for
dissolution of the marriage. Aggrieved by the order, the present appeal was made before
the High Court of Madras.
Ivan had filed a counter affidavit and denied all allegations. Sarah had mentioned about
the treatment given to him by Dr. Kuruvilla to prove that he was suffering from paranoid
schizophrenia. Several documents were also filed to show that he was admitted to the
hospital for treatment and that he was advised to continue drugs.
After going through the documents and the evidence submitted by Sarah, the Court
confirmed the order of the District Judge and allowed the appeal.
Sections Referred:
• Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act