Voluntary consent of both parities required for valid marriage

Usha vs. Abraham

Filed under: Sections 18 & 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 Appellant: Usha Respondent: Abraham Citation: AIR 1988 Kerala 96 Court: In the i!h "o#rt of Kerala Judges: K$ %ohn &athe' and K$($ )ala*rishnan
This is an appeal filed challenging the order of the same Court allowing the petition for annulment of marriage on grounds of mental disorder and incapacity to give valid consent for marriage. Facts Usha and Abraham, both Christians married in a church in Kerala. It was an arranged marriage and both had visited each other before marriage. Abrahams parents had also visited Usha and they had an engagement ceremony before marriage. Abrahams case was that on the day of the marriage he noticed symptoms of mental retardation in Usha. He claimed that when they were signing in the church records he noticed that Ushas sister was prompting the spelling. After marriage, he reali ed that Usha was suffering from severe mental retardation! therefore, he approached the ecclestial tribunal see"ing directions for dissolution of their marriage, where his re#uest was turned down. After two years he left for $har%ah and returned after one year when he reali ed that his wifes condition was not going to improve and that he was not able to lead a normal married life with her. &n learning about the civil remedy he filed a petition before the $ingle 'udge. Usha however denied all the allegations made against her and stated that they had lived together normal married couples till her husband left for $har%ah. He also used to write letters and send gifts to her from there. However, his behavior changed after a few years of his return which eventually culminated in his filing the petition for annulment of the marriage. $everal witnesses were e(amined on both the sides and the $ingle 'udge appointed Ushas mother as her guardian. )he Court passed an order of annulment based on evidence and stated that Usha was a *lunatic or *idiot from the time of marriage and that she was incapable of giving consent for marriage. However, the Abrahams allegation that his consent was obtained by fraud was not accepted. Usha filed the present appeal challenging the order of the single 'udge. $he denied all the allegations and stated that she was neither a lunatic nor an idiot and that the medical certificate and the letters could prove the same.

)o clarify the point as to whether she was lunatic or idiot at the time of marriage, she was presented for e(amination before a medical board. )he medical board opined that she was congenitally an *idiot and that she did not suffer from lunacy. Her intelligence was found below average. $he was found not to be congenitally impotent and that there was no gynecological defect. Abraham filed ob%ections to the findings of the medical board and e(amined a psychiatrist to support his case. Observations of the Court After e(amining the evidence given by the psychiatrist and analy ing the relevant literature on *idiocy *mental retardation etc., the Court observed that the important #uestion that arose in a case of this nature was that whether the parties were in a position to understand the conse#uences of their acts. In this case, Court proceeded to e(amine if Usha possessed the capacity to understand the conse#uences of the marriage entered with Abraham. &n this point, the Court opined that it was clear from Ushas evidence and the letters e(changed between her and her husband that she "new the conse#uences of the marriage. +urther, after analy ing some of the previous %udgments in this light, the Court held that voluntary consent of both parties was necessary for a valid marriage but the contract of marriage did not re#uire high degree of intelligence. In order to ascertain the nature of the contract of marriage a person must be mentally capable of appreciating that it involves responsibilities normally attaching to marriage. In a case where such an issue was raised, it was the responsibility of the other party to show that because of the mental disorder the other spouse was unable to "now the nature and conse#uences of his,her acts. After considering all the relevant %udgments and evidence in this case, the Court held that Usha "new that ob%ect and purpose of marriage when she entered into the marriage and that her *lunacy or *idiocy was also not proved and held that the marriage between Usha and Abraham was perfectly valid in the eye of the law. )herefore, the %udgment of the $ingle 'udge was set aside and held that their marriage could not be declared null and void under $ection -. of the Indian /ivorce Act and the appeal was allowed. Sections Referred: $ections -0 1 -. of the Indian /ivorce Act, -02.

Cases Referred: I. 'ayara% vs. I. 3 +lorence AI4 -.50 Kant 2.. 3alimath ' ). $aro%a /avid vs. Christie +rancis AI4 -.22 Andh 6ra -50 4an%u" 4an%an /as vs. 6ranati Kumari 7erera 8-.09:- /3C ;5<= 8AI4 -.09 &rissa ;5: /aniel vs. $alara I>4 ?-.52: 9 Ker ;@5 3s. 'ordan /iengdeh vs. $. $. Chopra AI4 -.0@ $ C .;@

unsoundeness of mind concealed at the time of marriage

Smt. Kiran Bala Asthana and another vs. Bhaire Prasad Srivastava
Filed under: Sections 1+ ,1- ,c- and .,ii- of the ind# &arria!e Act, 199. Appellant: Smt$ Kiran )ala Asthana and another Respondent: )haire /rasad Srivastava Citation: AIR 198+ Allahabad +0+ Court: In the i!h "o#rt of Allahabad Judge: Deo*i 1andan
Facts Kiran 7ala filed this appeal against the decree dissolving her marriage with 7haire 6rasad $rivastava by a decree of divorce under the Hindu marriage Act on the ground that she was of an incurably unsound mind. Her husband, 7haire had filed an appeal in a lower Court and had claimed the relief of declaration that their marriage was null and void. )he )rial 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 Kirans 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. $he had applied for a medical e(amination. After considering the material placed before the Court, the Court had referred Kirans case to the >uc"now 3edical College for e(amination and observation. /r. 6rabhat $itholey, acting for /r. ' K )rivedi had prepared a report. )his 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 re#uired medical treatment. &n receiving this report, the Court made an attempt to bring about reconciliation between the parties. &n the Courts persuasion it was agreed that Kiran would get herself treated at the >uc"now 3edical College and obtain and submit a report of her mental condition after three months. )he Court further directed that it would be upto 7haire to loo" after Kirans 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. )hereafter, 7haire agreed to ta"e Kiran bac" with him as a measure of trial in order to ma"e 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 ta"en up. >iberty was however given to the parties to apply to the Court for any directions or orders in the meanwhile. However, about a month later, 7haire appeared with Kiran in the Court for a direction that Kirans parents may ta"e her away to loo" after her since he found it impossible to do so in view of her mental condition. Aotice was served to Kirans lawyer and her father appeared in the Court. +rom Kirans conduct and appearance the Court made a note of the fact that she was not "eeping fit in those days. It was clear that she was of an unsound mind.

)he Court accordingly directed that Kiran should stay with her father for the time being and a date was fi(ed for the hearing of the appeal. )hereafter, /r. 'K )rivedi of the >uc"now 3edical College was summoned in the Court as a witness in order to elucidate the facts and to give his e(pert opinion about Kirans mental condition. &n the issue of the earlier report, /r. )rivedi stated that he himself had e(amined Kiran earlier but /r. 6rabhat $itholey submitted the report because he had gone for leave. 7efore going on leave, he had e(amined Kiran on %ust three occasions and had opined that she was suffering from residual schi ophrenia. He further stated that he had e(amined the records of her treatment and the diagnosis was that she was suffering from schi ophrenia. According to him, this disease was curable if the treatment was continuous and prolonged provided she stayed in a congenial environment. Kirans lawyer contended that the finding of the )rial Court was based entirely on documents produced from the earlier case between Kiran and her first husband, /6 Asthana. )hese documents showed that Kiran was an *idiot at the time of marriage with /6 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 $ection -; 8-: 8iii: re#uired that the mental disorder must not only be incurable, but should also have e(isted 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. &n the other hand the main argument raised by 7haires lawyer was that 7haire should be granted a decree of nullity of marriage on the ground that his consent for marriage was obtained by fraud. )he fraud was that the fact of the annulment of Kirans earlier marriage with /r. /6 Asthana was concealed from him. According to the lawyer, if 7haire had "nown that Kirans first marriage had been annulled on the ground that she was mentally ill, he would never have married her. In response to this argument Kirans lawyer contended that it was not Kirans or her parents duty to go out of their way to inform 7haire of this fact. He himself should have found out whatever he wanted to "now. He had "nown Kiran for some time before the marriage and it was on account of her good loo"s that he had agreed to marry her. According to the lawyer, if 7haire had not made any further en#uiries it was not for Kiran or her parents to tell him why Kirans earlier marriage had been dissolved. Observations of the Court )he Court e(amined the arguments and held that the facts regarding the nullity of Kirans previous marriage on grounds of unsoundness of mind had been concealed from 7haire. Accordingly the marriage between the parties was fit to be annulled by a decreeof nullity under section -9 8-: 8c: of the Hindu 3arriage Act. )he 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 7haire could not be e(pected to live with her since she was suffering from schi ophrenia, which was of a serious degree.

Held: )he appeal was accordingly dismissed. Sections Referred: $ections -9 8-: 8c: and @8ii: of the Hindu 3arriage Act, -..@

R. San arnara!anan vs. Anandhavalli

Filed under: Sections 1+ ,1- ,b-, ,c- and . ,ii- ,c- of the ind# &arria!e Act, 19.. Appellant: R$ San*arnara2anan Respondent: Anandhavalli Citation: AIR 1998 &adras 198 Court: In the i!h "o#rt of &adras Judge: S$ &$ Abd#l 3ahab
Facts 4. $an"arnarayanan had filed a petition in the /istrict Court for the dissolution of his marriage with Anandhavalli on the grounds of mental disorder. According to him, he had not "nown anything about Anandhavallis family prior to the marriage and during the marriage ceremony, Anandhvallis father had concealed the fact that his daughter suffered from recurrent attac"s of insanity. )hus, $an"arnarayanan 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 Anandhavallis behavior, which was strange, uncommon and odd. After the wedding, $an"arnarayanan stated that Anandhavalli did not ta"e any food, nor did she tal" to anybody. Her relatives and family members were the only ones who too" care of her and administered some medicine to her without consulting the doctor. According to $an"arnarayanan, a local e(orcist was also brought in and he smeared white ashes on Anandhvallis forehead to drive out the evil spirit that was haunting her. However, when she was ta"en to $an"arnarayanans house, her behavior became violent. Bhen #uestioned, her father confessed that he had concealed the fact that his daughter was under treatment for recurrent attac"s of insanity. After learning this, $an"arnarayanan 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 $an"arnarayanans friend s. $he further submitted she had been upset since her mother had suffered from a paralytic attac" 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 e(periencing. After e(amining the evidence, the )rial Court found that Anandhavalli was suffering from acute schi ophrenia and had suppressed the material facts regarding the disease she was suffering from prior to her marriage. Accordingly, the )rial Court allowed the petition for the dissolution of the marriage.

However, on appeal, the /istrict Court reversed the order of the )rial Court $an"arnarayanan then filed the present appeal challenging the order of the /istrict Court. Observations of the Court )he Court observed that the /istrict Court had approached the case from a very narrow perspective and had concluded that Anandhavalli was not suffering from $chi ophrenia at any time. However, it was held that this conclusion of the /istrict Court was contrary to the evidence available on record. 7ased on the opinion of doctors, the Court held that Anandhavalli was indeed suffering from $chi ophrenia, 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. +urther, the Court held that there was no evidence to show that the facts about Anandhavallis mental state had been disclosed to $an"arnarayanans parents or to him at the time of marriage. )hus after a thorough scrutiny of the evidence, both oral and documentary, it was also concluded that the fact that Anandhavalli was afflicted with $chi ophrenia was suppressed and $an"arnarayanans consent for the marriage had been obtained by fraud. +or these reasons, the appeal was allowed and the decree of the /istrict Court was set aside. Sections Referred: $ections -9 8-: 8b:, 8c: and @ 8ii: 8c: of the Hindu 3arriage Act, -.@@

Cases Referred: 4a%inder $ingh vs. 6omilla, AI4 -.05 /elhi 90@ 3ini vs. 'ames Koshy Ale(ander 8-..<: 93ad >' <05 Kanchan /evi vs. 6romod Kumar 3ittal, AI4 -..2 $C ;-.9 'ayaradha vs. A.A. 3ahalingam, 8-..<: 93ad >B 2.C $han"er 4am vs. 3rs. $u"anya, 8-..5: 9 3ad >B ;54a%agopalan vs. Usha 4a%agopalan, 8-..0: - 3ad >' -0-

C.J.Jo! v. Shill!

Filed under: Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act Appellant: "$%$%o2 Respondent: Shill2 Citation: 199. A I " 6414 Court: In the i!h "o#rt of Kerala Judges: /$5$1ara2anan 1ambiar
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.'.'oy and $hilly married in a church in Kottappady, Kerala. According to 'oy, $hilly and her parents had made a representation before marriage stating that she was of good physical and mental health. 7ased on such a representation 'oy had agreed to marry her. He then claimed that during the marriage and immediately after it $hilly had shown serious symptoms of psychotic disorder. 7oth of them had lived together at her place and during this period, they has been unable to have intercourse due to her mental disorder. )hereafter, they left for 'oys house where they lived together for few more days. /uring her stay there, $hilly had allegedly tried to commit suicide following which she was treated for mental disorder as an inDpatient in a hospital for about 2C days during intermittent periods. He also claimed that all his attempts to have se(ual intercourse with her had failed due to her frigidity. $ubse#uently, 'oy had approached the Eparchial )ribunal for declaring his marriage null and void and later he also got the order affirmed by the Appellate )ribunal. He was however advised to procure a decree of nullity from the Court as well. )herefore, he filed the present petition in the Court see"ing directions for annulment of his marriage. $hilly also filed her ob%ections to the petition. $he denied all the allegations regarding her mental disorder, attempt to suicide etc. made by 'oy. &n the other hand, she alleged that after the marriage 'oy 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 ta"en interest in cohabitation and for the above reason she as"ed the Court to dismiss the petition. $everal family members, psychiatrists and doctors were e(amined as witnesses to prove that she was suffering from mental disorder during the time of and after the marriage. Bitnesses were also

e(amined 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 e(amining the relevant documents, the Court loo"ed into several issues such as whether $hilly was impotent and *lunatic at the time of marriage, and if the consent for marriage had been obtained by fraud. )he Court observed that it was admitted by both the parties that the marriage was not consummated and the evidence showed that $hilly was responsible for this. After e(amining several previous %udgments and evidence, the Court held that continuous refusal of the wife to have the marriage consummated could be perceived as impotency. +urther, 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. +or the above reasons, the Court allowed the petition and declared the marriage between 'oy and $hilly 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: $ection -. of the Indian /ivorce Act

Sarah S!la vs. "van #homas $eorge and Others

Filed under: Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act Appellant: Sarah S2la Respondent: Ivan 6homas (eor!e and 7thers Citation: 199. A I " 888 Court: In the i!h "o#rt of &adras Judge: Srinivasan, Ra9# & A$R$ :a*shmanan
Facts $arah $yla was married to Ivan )homas Feorge. $he claimed that Ivan had been cruel to her and that he was violent and abusive without any reason. +urther, she claimed that respondents 91; 8names not mentioned: had suppressed the facts about Ivans mental condition 8paranoid schi ophrenia 1 chronic maniac depression: and the information about the treatment meted out to him. )he /istrict 'udge had allowed $arahs petition for dissolution of the marriage. Aggrieved by the order, the present appeal was made before the High Court of 3adras.

Ivan had filed a counter affidavit and denied all allegations. $arah had mentioned about the treatment given to him by /r. Kuruvilla to prove that he was suffering from paranoid schi ophrenia. $everal 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 $arah, the Court confirmed the order of the /istrict 'udge and allowed the appeal. Sections Referred: $ection -. of the Indian /ivorce Act

r ! ! Padma "ao vs. S#ara$ya %a&shmi

Filed under: Section 14 ,1- ,iv- ind# &arria!e Act, 19..
Appellant: /r F F 6adma 4ao Respondent: $wara%ya >a"shmi Citation: AI4 -.5C A.6 ;CC Court: In the High Court of Andhra 6radesh Judges: Fopal 4ao E"bote and 4amchandra 4ao This is an appeal against the order of the Second Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, dismissing the petition for divorce filed by Dr !ao. Facts /r F F 4ao filed a petition under section -; 8-: 8iv: of the Hindu 3arriage Act, see"ing a divorce from his wife, $wara%ya >a"shmi, on the ground that she was suffering from a virulent form of >eprosy. )he petition was dismissed by the )rial Court on the ground that the parties had not been married for three years as re#uired by law. Against this order, /r 4ao filed this appeal. Observations of the Court Under the provisions of $ection -; 8-:8iv: of the Hindu 3arriage Act, a petition for divorce can be filed by a party to a marriage, if the spouse had been suffering from leprosy for a period of at least three years before filing of the divorce petition. $imilarly, under-;8-:8iii:, a party to a marriage can file a petition for divorce if the spouse was suffering from unsoundness of mind for a period of at least three years prior to filing of the petition. Interpreting these provisions of the Hindu 3arriage Act, the High Court held that the provisions of $ection -;8-: 8iii: or 8iv: re#uired that for a petition to be filed under the sections, the spouse should have been suffering from >eprosy or unsoundness of mind for at least three years, and not that they should have been married for three years.

)he High Court thus held that the )rial Court had erred in dismissing /r 4aos petition on the ground that he and $wara%ya >a"shmi had not been married for three years prior to filing the divorce petition. )he High Court held that $wara%ya >a"shmi had been suffering from a virulent form of leprosy for more than three years prior to the filing of the petition for divorce and hence /r F F 4ao was entitled to a decree of divorce. Sections Referred: $ection -; 8-: 8iv: of the Hindu 3arriage Act, -.@@

Permanent Alimony in Special 'ircumstances

(aresh Kumar !upta vs. Smt. )yoti

Filed *nder: Sections 1+ ,1- ,a- and 14 ,1- ,iii- of the ind# &arria!e Act, 19.. Appellant:1aresh K#mar (#;ta Respondent: Smt$ %2oti Citation: +<<. AI " 14<8 Court: In the i!h "o#rt of %har*hand Judge: ari Shan*ar /rasad
Facts Aaresh Kumar and 'yotis marriage was solemni ed according to Hindu rites and customs. About a year later Aaresh filed for dissolution and annulment of marriage. He alleged that after their marriage, 'yoti was brought to her matrimonial house and during her stay! she did not tal" to anybody, not even to her husband. It was also argued that she would not let her husband touch her and when any indulgence for se( was made by him she would bluntly refuse by saying that she had no interest in such matters. Bhen Aaresh, wanted to consummate his marriage with her she slapped him. )hereafter several attempts were made to bring her to normal state of affairs, but there was no improvement in her condition. )he marriage remained unconsummated. A few days after the wedding, 'yoti went bac" to her family home and her father was informed about her condition. It was stated that 'yotis father assured Aaresh and his family that he would get her treated. However, there was no improvement in her condition. Bhen Aaresh went to get her home, he was refused on the ground that the occasion was not an auspicious one. Bhen 'yoti came bac" to her matrimonial home, her attitude towards her husband and her inDlaws, did not change and she continued to abuse her inDlaws. Compelled by the circumstances, Aaresh filed a suit for the dissolution and nullity of marriage.

&n the other hand, 'yoti denied the allegation of ill treatment and desertion. According to her when she came to her matrimonial house after marriage with her husband, she started her matrimonial life and the marriage was consummated. Her father had met all the demands of dowry made by Aaresh who had been given cash amount of 4s. <2,CCC,D through ban" draft as well as 9C tolas of gold ornaments, etc and in all dowry worth about 9 la"hs was given to Aareshs father. /espite this, he was not satisfied and started demanding a 3aruti car and other articles. 'yotis father was unable to meet these demands and because of this, she was driven out of her matrimonial home. 'yoti also stated that her inDlaws assaulted her and sometimes even food was not given to her. $he further contended that she was a woman of sound mind and had never misbehaved with her husband or inDlaws. $he was sent bac" to her fathers house with the warning that she should come bac" only if she got the 3aruti car with her. Ultimately, she went bac" to her matrimonial home and she stayed there for about two months. A panchayat was also held and in which her husband admitted that he had tortured her and promised that he would mete out proper treatment henceforth. However, things had not improved and she was driven out of her matrimonial home. $he had then filed a case under section <.0DA, Indian 6enal Code against her husband and others. After careful scrutiny of the evidence, the )rial Court came to the conclusion that 'yoti was not suffering from any mental abnormality and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aaresh then field this appeal challenging the %udgement of the )rial Court. Observations of the Court )he Court e(amined the evidence e(tended by both the parties. )he Court pointed out that neither Aareshs mother nor father had been e(amined as witnesses. )he Court further held that only such persons had been e(amined on behalf of Aaresh who would have seen things in a casual light. )hese witnesses did not really "now the private details of what too" place in the household since they were not living with him. According to the Court 'yoti had not been sub%ected to any medical test and no evidence had been brought on record which showed that she was suffering from a mental disorder. Bith respect to the contention that marriage had not been consummated, the Court held that the wife had denied this allegation and therefore nothing could be concluded with this regard. According to the Court, the evidence given by the witnesses on behalf of 'yoti showed that the demand of the 3aruti car and its nonDfulfillment was the cause of tense relations between Aaresh and 'yoti. &n the basis of this evidence, no case for grant of divorce or nullity of marriage was made out. At the end of the argument, Aareshs lawyer had stated that since both the sides had been living separately for the past --D-9 years and there was no chance of their living together now, it was better that the prayer for divorce was allowed. )he Court considered this argument and held that it was #uite clear that 'yoti and Aaresh had been living separately for the last -9D-; years and there was no chance of their reDunion. )herefore, the best course would be to grant the decree of divorce so that both of them could live their lives in their own way. In light of this reason, the Court allowed the appeal of decree of divorce under section -; of the Hindu 3arriage Act. However, Aaresh was directed to pay rupees one la"h fifty thousand to 'yoti as permanent alimony within a period of three months. Held:)he appeal was accordingly allowed. Sections Referred:

$ection -9 8-: 8a:, -; 8-: 8iii: of the Hindu 3arriage Act, -.@@

Cases Referred: $mt. Aarinder Kaur vs. 6arshotam $ingh, AI4 -.00 /el 999 3uthura% Koilpillai vs. Esther Gictoria Kannammal, AI4 -.5C 3ad 9;5

+edical ,-amination to .est +ental condition /degree of mental illness /0igh court and supreme court $udgments
Joseph Augusth! vs. %ar! &li'abeth %athe(

Filed under: Section 18 of the Divorce Act, 1869 Appellant: %ose;h A#!#sth2 Respondent: &ar2 =li>abeth &athe' Citation: 1998 AI " ++.4 Court: In the i!h "o#rt of Kerala Judges: AR :a*shmanan and K5 San*aranara2anan
Facts 'oseph Augusthy filed this appeal as"ing for a decree of nullity of the marriage between him and his wife, 3ary Eli abeth 3athew. His main contention was that 3arys neurological disorder and mental illness was concealed from him at the time of marriage and a fraud was played on him. According to 'oseph, 3ary had been suffering from neurological disorder and had been under treatment for some time even prior to the marriage and she and her parents purposely concealed this fact from him. In the High Court, 3ary resisted the allegations. Bhen the matter was pending before the $ingle 'udge, 'oseph suggested the names of two doctors as witnesses, /r 3adhusoodanan and /r Ananda"umar. However, they had not been e(amined because 'oseph was of the opinion that an impartial opinion could not be obtained by them. In these circumstances, 'oseph moved a petition praying that 3ary should be e(amined by a 7oard of e(perts. 3ary filed a counterDaffidavit stating that there was no need for her to be e(amined by a medical board since there was no evidence to show that she was suffering from a neurological or psychiatric disorder. )he $ingle 'udge however re%ected 'osephs re#uest to have a 3edical 7oard e(amine 3ary. )he 'udge while passing the order remar"ed that even though several allegations were made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the evidence given by 'oseph and his father did not

support the allegations and there was no need to get 3ary e(amined by the 3edical 7oard. Challenging that order 'oseph then filed the current appeal before the higher bench at the High Court. )hereafter, 'oseph agreed to suggest names of doctors for constituting the 3edical 7oard for e(amining 3ary. 3arys lawyer also submitted that if a panel was constituted by the Court, then /r. 3adhusoodanan, who was 3arys doctor, should also be made a member of the 3edical 7oard. 'oseph had no ob%ection to that. Bhen the case came up for hearing 'oseph gave the names of five doctors to constitute the 3edical 7oard. Observations of the Court )he Court observed that in such a case, it was always better if 3ary volunteered for the medical e(amination. However, because a panel had been suggested by 'oseph, 3ary would submit herself to this 3edical 7oard for e(amination. )he Court further held that out of the five doctors, three doctors would form a #uorum and of these three doctors, /r. 3adhusoodanan shall be a member for conducting the medical e(amination. )he Court also directed that the e(penses for this medical e(amination should be borne by 'oseph. )he Court also re#uested the doctors who constituted the 3edical 7oard to complete the e(amination within a period of one month. )he appeal was accordingly allowed.

ifference bet#een +ental 1llness and 1nsanity to be (oted

Mohinder Kaur vs. S.S. Sabharwal

Filed under: Section 14 ,1- ,iii- of the ind# &arria!e Act, 19.. and R#le 18 of "ode of "ivil /roced#re Appellant: &ohinder Ka#r Respondent: S$S$ Sabhar'al Citation: ?$A$7$ 1o$ 81 of 1989 Decided on 1+$11$89 Court: In the i!h "o#rt of Delhi Judge: @o!esh'ar Da2al
Facts Mohinder Kaur and S.S. Sabharwal were married with two male children. Both the sons however died. S.S. Sabharwal then filed this petition for divorce on the ground that his wife was suffering from mental illness, which included schizophrenia, and also on the ground that she had deserted him. In order to support his case, S.S. Sabharwal stated that his wife had been suffering from incurable insanity from the very start of their marriage. According to him, he had continued to provide her treatment with the hope that she might be cured. e also submitted the tic!ets of various hospitals, which they had visited for her treatment. It was also alleged that Mohinder could not be left alone in the house because she used to throw away the goods, cash, and "ewelry from the house.

e also went on to state that Mohinder#s mental state was so bad that one could even suspect death at her hands. According to him, she might !ill while sleeping or administer poison without understanding the merits or demerits of her actions. It was also stated that she was $uite capable of leaving the house during a fit of insanity. owever, Mohinder Kaur in response denied all of the above allegations. She stated that it was her husband who was guilty of e%tending e%treme physical and mental cruelty towards her. She further alleged that her husband had started neglecting her immediately after the first year of marriage and that he constantly placed burdensome demands on her threatening that if she did not fulfill those demands she would be forced to leave the house. She also stated that she was !ept on insufficient diet even during her pregnancy. &urthermore, Mohinder claimed that their first child had died within '( hours of birth and her husband or his mother had not even bothered to visit her in the hospital or en$uire about her health. She also contended that when their second son, who was ( years old, had fallen ill, her husband had refused to pay for his medicines and diet. )he son had then suffered from paralysis and during this time, she had ta!en care of him all by herself. e had died at the age of *. +ith respect to the fact that she was of an unsound mind, Mohinder Kaur denied all the allegations and stated that she was matriculate and had also wor!ed on a part,time basis before her marriage. At the )rial -ourt, the husband had presented evidence of psychiatrists who had treated his wife. .ne doctor from AIIMS claimed that he had e%amined Mohinder Kaur and had diagnosed her as suffering from schizophrenia. In the cross, e%amination however, he had stated that he had only seen her twice but had made the diagnosis of schizophrenia on the basis of the symptoms. e had also brought the records wherein these symptoms were listed. In order to support the claims made by him, S.S. Sabharwal had also presented the evidence of neighbors and other doctors. .n the other hand, Mohinder Kaur#s lawyer e%amined the evidence given by another doctor of AIIMS who stated that he had treated her some time bac! but he did not clearly remember her condition. e did not have any records with him. )he wife#s brother also stated that his sister was perfectly all right. /uring cross,e%amination, Mohinder admitted that her husband had never given her beatings, but she denied the fact that she had been treated at the +illington hospital by a private doctor as claimed by her husband. At the )rial -ourt, the 0udge considered two main issues1 whether Mohinder Kaur was insane2 +hether she had left the house of her husband, and if so, to what effect2 After e%amining the arguments put forth by both the parties, the )rial -ourt re"ected the plea of desertion but found that Mohinder Kaur was suffering from a mental illness, which was of an incurable nature and therefore granted the decree of divorce to S.S. Sabharwal. Mohinder Kaur then filed the present appeal against the order of the )rial -ourt. Arguments made on behalf of Mohinder Kaur

)he lawyer on behalf of Mohinder Kaur contended that in the plea submitted by S.S. Sabharwal, it had been stated that his wife was suffering from incurable insanity, whereas the evidence provided by him showed that she was suffering from schizophrenia. )he lawyer also argued that the issue considered by the )rial -ourt was that whether Mohinder was insane but the finding had been that she was suffering from a mental illness. )herefore, the lawyer contended that the finding was contrary to the plea ta!en by S.S. Sabharwal. bservations of the Court )he -ourt stated that Section 34 536 5iii6 had been amended in the year 3789, but S.S. Sabharwal had filed the case prior to this amendment. )he -ourt then $uoted Section 34 536 5iii6 of the Act before it had been amended and e%plained that prior to its amendment, this section had not made any distinction between the mental illness and insanity. According to the -ourt, the )rial 0udge had given the "udgment according to the amendment whereas1 S.S. Sabharwal had framed the petition according to the Act prior to its .amendment In this situation, S.S. Sabharwal filed an appeal see!ing permission for amendment of the petition. )he -ourt allowed the application for amendment and permitted S.S. Sabharwal to file the amended petition. )he appeal was allowed to the e%tent that the "udgment and decree of the )rial -ourt was set aside and the case was remanded to the )rial -ourt for trial on the basis of the amended petition. )he case was accordingly remanded. Sections Referred: Section 34 536 5iii6, indu Marriage Act, 37::

'ourt Favours 2ea&er Party / +ental 1llness / 0igh court and Supreme court $udgemetns

'ourt Favours 2ea&er Party

/ramatha K#mar &ait2 vs$ Ashima &ait2 R$S$ Sh2amala and other /etitioners vs$ ($ Ra9ase*har (o;ala*rishnan 1air vs$ 6hembatt2 Ramani

Pramatha Kumar +aity vs. Ashima +aity

Filed under: Section 14,1- ,iii- of the ind# &arria!e Act Appellant: /ramatha K#mar &ait2 "espondent: Ashima &ait2 'ourt: In the i!h "o#rt of "alc#tta

'itation: AIR 1991 "A:"U66A 1+4 )udges: A$&$)hattachar9ee and A$K$1a2a*

Facts
/ramatha K#mar &ait2 claimed that his 'ife Ashima &ait2 'as s#fferin! from mental disorder of an inc#rable nat#re$ /ramatha stated that Ashima 'as violentl2 a!!ressive and a so#rce of dan!er to himself and his famil2$ 6herefore, he filed for divorce on the !ro#nds of mental disorder$ Ashima revealed that she had indeed s#ffered from some sort of a mental disorder a fe' 2ears a!o and 'as admitted for abo#t a month in a &ental os;ital in "alc#tta and that she 'as no' totall2 c#red$ 6he 6rial "o#rt had re9ected /ramatha ;etition$ 6herefore, he filed the ;resent a;;eal$

3bservations of the 'ourt

It 'as noted that /ramatha had failed to collect evidence from his ;arents or an2 doctor to s#;;ort his alle!ation that Ashima 'as violent to'ards his ;arents and that she 'as s#fferin! from an inc#rable mental disorder$ ?#rther, the "o#rt 'hile eAaminin! the relevant ;rovisions observed that he failed to ;rove that her mental disorder 'as of s#ch a nat#re that he co#ld not be eA;ected to live 'ith her$ 6he "o#rt observed that Ashima 'as an #ned#cated ;erson 'itho#t an2 means of s#;;ort of her o'n, 'hile /ramatha 'as a !overnment servant 'ho 'as not 'illin! to maintain her$ In vie' of this, it 'as also observed since Ashima 'as the 'ea*er ;art2 loc*ed in an #neB#al fi!ht, therefore, her ;lea sho#ld be acce;ted$ In the ;resent case, the evidence 'as a!ainst the h#sband$ 6herefore, the "o#rt did not interfere 'ith the order of the lo'er "o#rt$

Sections "eferred:

Section 14,1- ,iii- of the ind# &arria!e Act ,+. of 199.-

'ases "eferred:

State )an* of India vs$ Amal K#mar Sen, 1988 :ab I" 1.8.: ,1988- 9+ "al 31 806 Dastane vs$ Dastane, AIR 198. S" 1.40: ,198.- + S"" 4+6 Karti* vs$ &an#, AIR 1984 "al .0. 3hite vs$ 3hite, AIR 19.8 S" 001: 19.8 AII :% 681 )i;in "handra vs$ /robha;ati, AIR 19.8 S" 186: 19.8 S"" 08 S#dhan!sh# &ohan "ha*rabort2 vs$ :ife Ins#rance "or;oration of India, ,19889+ "al 31 1<+

4uotes from the )udgment

C6he le!islat#re has not made #nso#ndness of mind or mental disorder, b2 itself, a matrimonial fa#lt #nless the #nso#ndness is inc#rable and the disorder is s#ch as to disable,d- the ;erson to become a reasonabl2 tolerable matrimonial ;artnerC$

".S. Shyamala and other Petitioners vs. !. "a$ase&har

Filed *nder: Section +0 of the "ivil /roced#re "ode ,. of 19<8Appellant: R$S$ Sh2amala and other /etitioners "espondent: ($ Ra9ase*har 'itation: AIR 199. Karnata*a ++8 'ourt: In the i!h "o#rt of Karnata*a )udges: K#mar Ra9aratnam

Facts
6he R$S$ Sh2amala and ($ Ra9ase*har 'ere married in )an!alore$ After marria!e, the2 started livin! to!ether in )an!alore itself and had t'o children$ At the time this case 'as filed, Ra9ase*har had the c#stod2 of the children and both of them 'ere livin! 'ith him$ After abo#t 18 2ears of marria!e, Sh2amala had left her matrimonial home in &2sore d#e to certain differences bet'een the co#;le$ Ra9ase*har then filed a ;etition for divorce 'hich 'as still ;endin! at the "ivil "o#rt of &2sore$ is contention 'as that he sho#ld be !ranted divorce as his 'ife 'as a mental ;atient 'ho co#ld not be c#red$ e also stated that Sh2amalaDs father had ta*en her to 1I& A1S, )an!lore for her treatment$ 6hereafter Ra9ase*har made an a;;lication to the i!h "o#rt that both the cases sho#ld be tried at &2sore$ Accordin! to him, both his children 'ere at school there and his ;resence in &2sore 'as necessar2 so that he co#ld loo* after them$ e f#rther stated that he 'as 'or*in! in the De;artment of )otan2 at &2sore, and the 'or* involved teachin! beca#se of 'hich his ;resence 'o#ld be necessar2 at &2sore$ 6he case of Sh2amala 'as that she had been driven o#t of her matrimonial home and had been forced to !o to )an!alore to reside 'ith her father$ Accordin! to her she 'as read2 and 'illin! to loo* after her children and live 'ith her h#sband$ She also contended that

Ra9ase*har had mana!ed to obtain certain medical certificates beca#se of his infl#ence and for this reason, he had been #r!in! that the case sho#ld be tried in &2sore$ Sh2amala also stated that she 'as #nem;lo2ed and 'as sta2in! 'ith her father beca#se of 'hich she 'o#ld not be able to afford the travel eA;enses if the case 'as tried at &2sore$ It 'as f#rther stated that bein! a lad2 it 'o#ld be diffic#lt for her to sta2 overni!ht alone at &2sore$ 6herefore, accordin! to Sh2amala the cases sho#ld have been tried at )an!alore$

3bservations of the 'ourt

6he "o#rt observed that Ra9ase*har had himself stated that his 'ife 'as s#fferin! from a mental disorder, 'hich 'as inc#rable$ In vie' of these alle!ations the "o#rt o;ined that Sh2amala co#ld not be forced to !o to &2sore for the hearin!$ In vie' of this the "o#rt allo'ed the a;;eal$ 6he case filed b2 Ra9ase*har at &2sore 'as transferred to the "o#rt of /rinci;al ?amil2 "o#rt, )an!alore$ 6he ;etition filed b2 Ra9ase*har for the transfer of the cases at &2sore 'as accordin!l2 dismissed$

Sections "eferred:

Section+0 of the "ivil /roced#re "ode

!opala&rishnan (air vs .hembatty "amani

Filed under: Sections 1+ ,1- ,a- & +. ind# &arria!e Act Appellants: (o;ala*rishnan 1air "espondent: 6hembatt2 Ramani 'itation: AIR 1989 K=RA:A 441 'ourt: In the i!h "o#rt of Kerala )udges: 5$Sivaraman 1air & &$?athima )eevi

Facts
(o;ala*rishnan 1air and 6hembatt2 Ramani 'ere married to each other$ (o;ala*rishnan had field a ;etition see*in! an order for n#llit2 of his marria!e on the !ro#nd that he 'as e;ile;tic and im;otent and that the marria!e had not been cons#mmated for the above reasons$ 6he ;etition 'as allo'ed and Ramani made an a;;lication #nder Section +. of the ind# &arria!e Act claimin! maintenance at the rate of Rs$ 4<<EF ;er month till she married a!ain$

(o;ala*rishnan filed ob9ections that the a;;lication sho#ld not be allo'ed since the marria!e 'as n#ll and void$ 7n his behalf, it 'as ar!#ed that maintenance co#ld be !ranted onl2 in cases of 9#dicial se;aration or divorce$ 6he 6rial "o#rt fo#nd that maintenance 'as a;;licable in all cases of divorce, dissol#tion of marria!e, 9#dicial se;aration or ann#lment of marria!e$ 6he "o#rt then ;assed an order that (o;ala*rishnan sho#ld ;a2 Rs$ 1.<EF to Ramani #ntil her death or till she remarried$ A!ainst this order (o;al*rishnan filed the ;resent a;;eal$

Arguments made on behalf of !opla&rishnan (air

It 'as ar!#ed on behalf of (o;ala*rishnan that the declaration that the marria!e 'as invalid im;lied that the s;o#ses 'ere never married at all$ ?#rther, it 'as ar!#ed that maintenance co#ld be !iven onl2 to s;o#ses of disr#;ted marria!es and not stran!ers 'ho 'ere accidentall2 dra'n into a void relationshi;, 'hich had no le!al effect$

3bservations of the 'ourt

7n the ;oint raised on behalf of (o;ala*rishnan, the "o#rt sa' no reason to acce;t the ar!#ment and held that there 'as no dis;#te that the ;arties 'ere married and that it 'as a le!al and valid marria!e at the time till the "o#rt disr#;ted it b2 a decree of n#llit2$ ?#rther, it 'as also observed that the terms did not a;;l2 to a sit#ation 'here the ;etition 'as made statin! that the marria!e 'as not cons#mmated since he 'as s#fferin! from e;ile;s2 and that he 'as im;otent$ o'ever, since that ;oint 'as not raised in the ;resent a;;eal, it ;roceeded to loo* into the iss#e in B#estion i$e !rant of maintenance$ In this re!ard, the %#d!e held that Section +. of the ind# &arria!e Act ;rovided that 'hen the "o#rt disr#;ted a marria!e b2 its decree, 'hatever be its reason, it co#ld order for ;a2ment of maintenance to the disadvanta!ed s;o#se$ In this case s;eciall2, 'here the h#sband himself had demanded the n#llit2 of the marria!e d#e to his o'n fa#lt, it !ave the "o#rt all the more reason to direct him to ens#re that Ramani is maintained b2 him till she remarried or till the "o#rt other'ise ordered 3ith this order, the a;;eal 'as dismissed$

Sections "eferred:

Sections 1+,1-,a- & +. ind# &arria!e Act

'ircumstances or ,ssentail For ivorce / 0igh court and supreme court $udgments / All 'harges to be substantiated
!rithvi !al Singh vs. Joginder Kaur

Filed *nder: Section 14 ,1- ,iii-, ind# &arria!e Act, 19.. Appellant: /rithvi /al Sin!h Respondent: %o!inder Ka#r Citation: ?$A$7$ 1o$ 1+1 of 198+G Decided on 0$0$1984 ,Unre;ortedCourt: In the i!h "o#rt of Delhi Judge: 1$1 (os'am2
Facts )he marriage between ;rithvi ;al Singh and 0oginder Kaur was solemnized according to Si!h< indu rites and two children, a boy and a girl were born out of it. After about 9 years of marriage, ;rithvi ;al Singh filed a +rit ;etition in the /istrict -ourt for decree of divorce on grounds that his wife was suffering from a mental disorder to an e%tent that he could not be e%pected to live with her. In order to support this claim he alleged that since the time they had been married his wife had behaved li!e a person of unsound mind. According to him, she would start laughing, shouting and weeping without any reason and would often threaten to commit suicide. e further stated than when he discussed this with 0oginder#s parents, he was informed that she used to behave in this manner even before marriage. According to ;rithvi ;al he consulted several eminent psychiatrists who diagnosed her to be suffering from schizophrenia and opined that this disease was not curable. e alleged that 0oginder#s parents had hidden facts regarding the mental condition of their daughter from him at the time of the marriage and therefore it was a case of fraud. It was also sated that even after the marriage she used to go and live with her parents for long periods. As a result, they had lived together for only : years after their marriage. )his petition was contested by 0oginder Kaur who denied being of an unsound mind. She admitted that she had been married to ;rithvi ;al Singh and had two children from the marriage. She stated that she had been well balanced before marriage and during the entire period of their wedding. She also stated that she was open to getting herself e%amined by any Medical Board that the -ourt would recommend. According to her, immediately after the wedding ;rithvi ;al Singh had started demanding more furniture from her parents and his family also used to threaten her that if she did not get more dowry from her parents they would get their son married to some other girl who would give them good dowry. /espite this, she had tried to ad"ust with her husband#s family. ;rithvi ;al Singh#s lawyer e%amined several witnesses including the statement given by a psychiatrist who had treated 0oginder Kaur by way of medicines and electric

shoc!s. According to him, on the basis of her previous doctor#s prescriptions he had diagnosed her as suffering from schizophrenia. Several of ;rithvi ;al#s friends gave their evidence and stated that they had often seen 0oginder Kaur in a state during which she would be crying and laughing at the same time. ;rithvi ;al Singh also alluded to the fact that 0oginder Kaur had written suicide notes and this had caused him a lot of mental torture. 0oginder Kaur#s lawyer also e%amined several witnesses in order to support her claims. )he most significant was the evidence given by a 0unior =esident from AIIMS. According to him, 0oginder had come to him for her e%amination in order to find out whether she was suffering from any mental disorder. e further claimed that another senior psychiatrist had also e%amined her and psychometric tests had been conducted on her in order to find out her mental condition. e finally stated that, she was not suffering from schizophrenia at the time she was e%amined. e also mentioned that schizophrenia was a serious illness but curable. )he )rial -ourt did not find that 0oginder Kaur was suffering from a mental disorder of such a degree that ;rithvi ;al Singh could not be e%pected to live with her. Accordingly, the )rial -ourt dismissed the petition for grant of decree of divorce. ;rithvi ;al Singh then filed the present appeal against the order passed by the )rial 0udge. bservations of the Court )he -ourt e%amined the evidence given by both the parties. According to the -ourt, the doctor who had diagnosed 0oginder as suffering from schizophrenia and had administered electric shoc!s to her had "umped to the conclusion without valid reasoning. e had only e%amined her for one day after which, he had administered electric shoc!s to her. According to the -ourt, the psychiatrist had also stated that schizophrenia was incurable whereas according to the latest Medical literature individuals suffering from this disorder could recover with proper treatment. )he -ourt held that 0oginder Kaur had produced reports of her e%amination from AIIMS, which showed that she was not suffering from any mental illness at that time. )he -ourt further stated that it had ta!en account of the fact that 0oginder Kaur had been sub"ected to lengthy and grueling cross,e%amination to which she had responded in an alert and aware manner. Based on the reasons stated above, the -ourt dismissed the present appeal and upheld the decision of the )rial 0udge in not granting the decree of divorce to ;rithvi ;al Singh. )he appeal was conse$uently dismissed. Section Referred: Section 34 536 5iii6 of the indu Marriage Act, 37::

Smriti"ana #ag vs. $ilip Kumar #ag

Filed *nder: Sections 1+, 14 ,1- ,iii- and 10 of the ind# &arria!e Act, 19.. Appellant: Smriti*ana )a! Respondent: Dili; K#mar )a! Citation: AIR 198+ "alc#tta .08 Court: In the #!h "o#rt of "alc#tta Judges: "hittatosh &oo*er9ee and Ram Krishna Sharma
Facts Smirita!ana Bag and /ilip Kumar Bag got married according to indu rites and customs. About si% months later /ilip filed a petition for annulment of his marriage with Smriti!ana under Section 3' of the indu Marriage Act or alternatively for dissolution of the marriage under Section 34 536 5iii6 of the indu Marriage Act. )his petition was filed in the -ourt of the /istrict 0udge on the ground that his wife was suffering from a mental disorder. It was alleged by /ilip that two days after their wedding he realized that Smirita!ana had >mental infirmity#. It was stated that during one of the ceremonies, that too! place after the wedding, she was found to be of completely unsound mind. She was e%tremely violent and aggressive. )hereafter she was e%amined by a psychiatrist, who gave her medicines but she continued to suffer from mental disorder. It was also submitted that a clinical psychologist, also e%amined her. According to /ilip, since his relatives could not stay with Smirita!ana in the same house, he rented a separate flat and too! her there. Sometime later when her father visited them she abused him because of which he fainted and had to be ta!en to the hospital. /ilip stated that he was unable to bear living with his wife and had sent her to her parent#s house. But one day when he had come bac! from office he had found her in his house. According to him she had continued to abuse and misbehave. e then got her admitted in a hospital as an in,patient. +hile she was admitted there, /ilip had filed a petition in the -ourt of the /istrict 0udge. )he -ourt had re"ected the prayer for annulment of marriage on the ground that /ilip had not satisfactorily proved that at the time of marriage Smirita!ana was suffering from any mental disorder. owever the -ourt allowed the dissolution of marriage under section 34 536 5iii6 of the Act. Smirita!ana filed this petition against this order of the /istrict -ourt. She denied all the allegations made against her. bservations of the Court

)he -ourt observed that /ilip#s petition for dissolution of marriage under section 34 536 5iii6 of the indu Marriage Act was filed prematurely. )he -ourt pointed out that /ilip had filed the petition even before one year of marriage had elapsed and the lower -ourt was not competent enough to entertain the /ilip#s petition for divorce. )he -ourt pointed out that a -ourt has the discretion either to direct that the decree for dissolution shall not have effect till the e%piry of one year from the date of marriage or to dismiss the petition. It was also pointed out that not only was /ilip#s petition prematurely filed, but the evidence about Smirita!ana#s mental condition covered such a short period that it was not possible to satisfactorily decide whether or not she was really of unsound mind or suffered from a mental disorder of such an e%tent that /ilip could not be e%pected to live with her. )he -ourt then went on to e%amine the evidence presented by the parties. According to the -ourt, the allegations made by /ilip could not be ta!en seriously because they had not been corroborated. &urthermore, apart from /ilip and his father none of the other family members or friends who had attended the wedding had been e%amined as witnesses. +ith respect to the medical evidence, the -ourt observed that /r -ha!raborty and ?andi had not been e%amined as witnesses and therefore, the prescriptions given by them could not be treated as evidence. Similarly the evidence of other psychiatrists was also dismissed because of a number of discrepancies in their evidence. )he -ourt however too! into account the testimony given by /r K; -hatter"ee who had been her doctor when she was admitted as an in,patient. According to him no mental disability was detected in her. Another point that was ta!en up by the -ourt was regarding the evidence given by Smirita!ana. )he -ourt pointed out that she had herself appeared in the -ourt and had answered the $uestions in a sane manner. )he -ourt also pointed out that she had been sub"ected to a lengthy cross,e%amination and even the lower court had not recorded anything unusual about her behavior when she appeared before them. In light of the above,mentioned reasons the -ourt set aside the "udgment passed by the )rial -ourt regarding the dissolution of marriage under S. 34 536 5iii6 of the Act. )he -ourt held that /ilip was not entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage on this ground. According to the -ourt he had not been able to satisfactorily prove that Smirita!ana was suffering continuously or intermittently from a mental disorder of a serious degree. /ilip and his father themselves had no personal !nowledge about her state of mental health before marriage. )he -ourt also re"ected /ilip#s plea for grant of "udicial separation. )he appeal was thereby allowed. Sections =eferred@ Section 3', 34 536 5iii6, 3( of the Section Referred: indu Marriage Act, 37::

Section 3', 34 536 5iii6, 3( of the

indu Marriage Act, 37::

Cases Referred: Sawita /evi vs. ;ran ?ath, AI= 3798 0 A K *7 Bowman vs. Bowman, 537(76 ' All B= 3'8@537(76 ;. 4:4,4:9 Bamford vs. Bamford, 37:9 -CD '*43 ?a!ul -handra vs. Shyamapada Ehose, AI= 37(: -al 4*3

Radhamon% Amma vs. &opinathan !illai

Filed *nder: Section 14 ,1- ,iii- of ind# &arria!e Act, 19..t Appellant: Radhamon2 Amma Respondent: (o;inathan /illai Citation: I ,199<- D&" 040 Court: In the i!h "o#rt of Kerala Judges: K$/$ Radha*rishna &enon and )$&$ 6h#lasidas
Facts =adhamony Amma and Eopinathan ;illai got married and on the same day, Eopinathan too! =adhamony to his house. According to Eopinathan, in his house, =adhamony behaved li!e a >mad woman# and this made him $uite upset. Because of this, Eopinathan was constrained to en$uire into her peculiar behavior. )he en$uiry revealed that =adhamony was a >lunatic# and had been under treatment for the same for several years. )hereafter, she was ta!en to a psychiatrist who certified that she was suffering from an incurable mental disease. Eopinathan then filed a petition praying that since =adhamony was suffering from incurable >madness#, he should be granted decree of divorce. In response to this =adhamony filed a statement and asserted that these allegations were baseless. )he -ourt however, allowed the petition for decree of divorce. =adhamony then filed the present appeal against the order of the lower -ourt in the igh -ourt. bservations of the Court

)he -ourt referred to relevant provisions of the law and then proceeded to e%amine the arguments. )he -ourt considered the statements of the psychiatrists who had e%amined =adhamony. .ne of the psychiatrist had stated that he had treated her for F ysterical psychosisG when she was 3( and that proper management had cured her. e also opined that if one was afflicted with such an illness, he<she could not have a successful marriage at the time of the illness. owever, the psychiatrist also pointed out that "ust because =adhamony had an illness of this nature at one point in her life, did not mean that she could not lead a happy married life. In reference to this point, the -ourt too! into consideration the fact that during the time they had been married, =adhamony had conceived while living with Eopinathan. Bven though she had miscarried later, it showed that they had led a married life together. )he -ourt also too! into account the statement given by another psychiatrist who had suggested to =adhamony that she should continue with the medicine since her illness was li!ely to recur. owever, he had also opined that =adhamony could attain social recovery. )he -ourt also e%amined a statement given by =adhamony in which she had stated that she had been treated by this psychiatrist for failing memory that had been caused by the stress she had e%perienced due to her miscarriage. )he -ourt found bac!ing for this argument in the letters Eopinathan had addressed to his wife during this period. According to the -ourt, these letters proved that Eopinathan had no case against =adhamony to the effect that she was an abnormal individual. .n the other hand, it was held that the letters showed that =adhamony was capable of managing her own affairs along with the affairs of the members of the "oint family. )he -ourt held that the above,mentioned circumstances established beyond doubt the fact that =adhamony was able to lead a normal married life. According to the -ourt, the lower -ourt had not approached the case from the right perspective. Accordingly, the -ourt set aside the order passed by the lower -ourt and allowed the appeal. Sections Referred: Section 34 536 5iii6 of indu Marriage Act, 37::

Manisha vs. !ramod

Filed *nder: Section 14 ,1- ,iii- of the ind# &arria!e Act, 19.. Appellant: &anisha Respondent: /ramod Citation: I ,199<- D&" .0< Court: In the i!h "o#rt of )omba2 Judge: A$A$ "a>i
Facts Manisha and ;ramod cohabited for less than a year after their marriage. ;ramod had then filed a petition for divorce on the grounds that his wife was suffering from a serious mental disorder because of which he could not be e%pected to live with her. owever, that petition was dismissed as it was premature and was filed before the completion of the minimum time stipulated under the law. e then filed another petition for divorce on the same ground. ?e%t, after 4 years, he amended the petition by adding the ground of cruelty. e alleged that due to his wife#s abnormal behavior he was being sub"ect to cruelty. )he )rial -ourt had held that both the allegations had not been proved. Accordingly, the petition had been dismissed. According to the )rial -ourt for about 4H years after the case had been filed, ;ramod had not felt that his wife had treated him with cruelty and had amended the petition only 4 years later. )he )rial -ourt thus held that this amendment had been added only as an afterthought and could not be ta!en seriously. )hereafter, ;ramod filed an appeal against the "udgment of the )rial -ourt. owever, he did not push the allegation that Manisha was suffering from a mental disorder. e only too! up the ground of cruelty. )he 0oint /istrict 0udge relied on a letter written by Manisha#s father to ;ramod. According to the 0udge, the accusations made against ;ramod therein had not been proved and thus the matter contained in the letter amounted to mental cruelty. )he 0oint /istrict 0udge had accordingly granted the decree of divorce to ;ramod. Manisha then filed the present appeal challenging the decision of the /istrict 0udge in granting the decree of divorce to ;ramod. bservations of the Court )he -ourt held that the 0oint /istrict 0udge had committed an error in relying upon a letter that had not even been written by Manisha. According to the -ourt it cannot be said solely on the basis of the letter that Manisha had treated ;ramod with mental cruelty. Accordingly, the -ourt allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the 0oint /istrict 0udge. ;ramod was directed to pay the costs of this appeal to Manisha. Sections Referred:

Section 34 536 5iii6 of the

indu Marriage Act, 37::

Joginder Kaur vs. Sur'it Singh

Filed under: Section 14 and 14,1- of the ind# &arria!e Act, 19.. 7rder 4+ of the "ivil /roced#re "ode$ 19<8 Section 10. of the Indian =vidence Act Appellant: %o!inder Ka#r Respondent: S#r9it Sin!h Citation: ?$A$?$7$ 1o$ 190F& of 198+, Decided on +.$1.$1980 ,Unre;ortedCourt: In the i!h "o#rt of /#n9ab and ar2ana Judge: I$S 6i'ana, %
Facts Sur"it Sing filed a ;etition under Section 34 536 5iii6 of the indu Marriage Act 37:: see!ing a decree of divorce from his wife 0oginder Kaur. e claimed that 0oginder Kaur was not mentally sound and cited a number of incidents where 0oginder had behaved in an abnormal manner Sur"it alleged that soon after their wedding, 0oginder had started behaving in an abnormal manner and she would laugh and cry without any reason in the presence of family members and visitors. &urther, she did not have a sense of decency, would urinate in the open compound in the presence of males, and sometimes would ease herself in the living room as well. Instances of her misbehavior with neighbors and visitors were also cited. 0oginder however, denied all the allegations and denied that she never suffered from any unsoundness of mind or mental disorder. She further claimed that she was being harassed by her husband and his family for dowry. She also stated that she had filed a case against her husband under Section 3': of the -riminal ;rocedure -ode for maintenance and a case for dowry harassment against her in laws. )he )rial -ourt granted a decree of divorce, against which 0oginder filed the present appeal in the igh -ourt. bservations of the Court ))he igh -ourt e%amined the evidence presented by Sur"it in support of his allegations@ &irstly, in reference to a tape recorded conversation in which 0oginder was supposed to have admitted that she was suffering from a mental ailment, the igh -ourt observed that Sur"it had nowhere e%plained either in the petition or in his statement

as to under what circumstances and in what manner the conversation had been recorded. Besides, none e%cept Sur"it himself had proved that the recorded female voice was that of 0oginder. Bven assuming that the voice was 0oginders, the voice in the tape only mentioned having undergone an electric shoc! after which some in"ections had been given as treatment Before the )rial -ourt 0oginder had claimed that her husband had coo!ed up the story that she was mentally unsound and she volunteered to have herself medically e%amined by the Mental ospital at Amritsar. She was admitted as an indoor patient in the hospital for about ': days. )he Medical Superintendent of the hospital had opined that she was not suffering from insanity of any form. )he senior clinical psychologist also gave his opinion that no signs of insanity were found e%cept that 0oginder was e%cessively neurotic and at times got confused while conducting the tests. )he )rial -ourt had however, doubted the validity of the evidence given by the Medical Superintendent and the senior clinical psychologist but the igh -ourt held that the )rial -ourt had incorrectly re"ected the said evidence. )he )rial -ourt had instead relied on the evidence of /r. =.C. ?arang, /r. A"ay Kohli and /r. Sarab"it Singh. )he igh -ourt however was not satisfied with their testimony, as they could not even properly identify 0oginder as the patient they had treated. Bven otherwise, the igh -ourt felt that based on their testimony, it was not possible to conclude that 0oginder Kaur was suffering from Schizophrenia. )he igh -ourt also observed that even the )rial -ourt had found that 0oginder was recovering from the disease and that under continued treatment she would recover. )he -ourt thus held that the decree of divorce granted by the )rial -ourt was wholly un"ustified. (eld: )he appeal was allowed. Sections Referred: Section 34 and 34536of the indu Marriage Act, 37:: .rder 4' of the -ivil ;rocedure -ode. 37I* Section 3(: of the Indian Bvidence Act

Re"ha vs. Ravinder Kumar

Filed *nder:Sections 14 ,1- ,iii- and +8 of ind# &arria!e Act, 19.. Appellant:Re*ha Respondent:Ravinder K#mar Citation:II ,1994- D&" 441 Court:In the i!h "o#rt of &adh2a /radesh Judge:&r$ R$D$ Sh#*la
Facts =e!ha and =avinder Kumar were married according to indu rites. )hey lived together as husband and wife and a girl child was born out of their con"ugal relationship. =avinder however, filed a petition for divorce in the )rial -ourt on the ground that =e!ha was suffering from a psychopathic disorder, which was later diagnosed as schizophrenia. It was also stated that she was intermittently suffering from mental disorder of such a degree that he could not be e%pected to live with her. e submitted the following facts to show that she was suffering from mental disorder@ According to =avinder, a few days after the consummation of marriage, =e!ha had suffered from a psychopathic disorder had lasted for * hours. It was alleged that at that time, she had been tal!ing incoherently and her behavior had been irresponsible and aggressive. er parents had been called and her elder brother had ta!en her to her father#s house. )hereafter, she had come bac! to her husband#s house after 3: days and had stayed with him for ' months. It was stated that it was at this time that she had conceived. owever, she had suffered from recurrent depression and during her pregnancy she had started behaving aggressively and abnormally. )hereafter she was ta!en to a doctor who had treated her and had also administered electric shoc!s to her during the course of the treatment. It was further alleged that after the delivery of the child, =e!ha had not ta!en care of the infant and her behavior had continued to be irrational and abnormal. )hereafter she was admitted in a hospital at Jellore where it was discovered that she was suffering from Schizophrenia. It was further alleged that even after her treatment at Jellore she had not recovered fully and was still suffering intermittently from the disorder. =avinder thus stated that he wanted a divorce on the ground that she was still suffering from an incurable mental disorder. In response to these allegations =e!ha had accepted the fact that the doctor mentioned by her husband and the hospital at Jellore had treated her. She however, denied the contention raised by her husband that she was suffering from schizophrenia. She further pleaded that her behavior during pregnancy had become slightly abnormal because her husband at that time was living elsewhere and her in, laws had mistreated her.

)his had caused her irritation. She further contended that she had obtained a degree of B.Bd as a regular student from a college and was presently ta!ing tutorial and coaching classes. )he )rial "udge had held that =e!ha#s behavior was abnormal. Accordingly, the -ourt had allowed the petition and had granted the decree of divorce to =avinder. =e!ha had contested this order by filing the present appeal. bservations of the Court )he -ourt e%amined the evidence submitted by both the parties and also referred to the provisions of Section 34 536 5iii6 of indu Marriage Act, 37::. Based on the statements of the psychiatrists and other people, the -ourt opined that =e!ha had not suffered from mental depression and had not been aggressive. After e%amining the evidence given both by the doctor and the psychiatrist who had treated =e!ha while she was at Jellore, the -ourt had concluded that some abnormalities of =e!ha#s behavior could be attributed to the electric shoc!s administered to her by the doctor. )he -ourt held that these electric shoc!s had been given to =e!ha without any rhyme or reason. According to the -ourt, the testimony given by the doctor did not inspire confidence since he had claimed the he had not maintained any records related to =e!ha and had claimed to remember =e!ha#s blood pressure that had been recorded ( years ago. )he -ourt also considered the point forwarded by =avinder#s lawyer that =e!ha had not got herself e%amined at AIIMS and that this should be interpreted unfavorably for her. )he =e!ha#s lawyer had responded to this by stating that =e!ha had wanted to get herself e%amined at AIIMS but =avinder had not given her the travel e%penses. =avinder#s lawyer had also contended that since there had been a delay on =e!ha#s part in filing the present appeal, =avinder had married a second time and for this reason, the present appeal should be held invalid. )he -ourt however ruled out both these contentions. )he -ourt also observed that =avinder had not visited his wife in the hospital, nor had he visited her at her parents# house where she had been living for many years. )herefore, according to the -ourt, =avinder Kumar was in no position to !now whether or not =e!ha was suffering intermittently from mental disorder. )he -ourt also too! view of the fact that =e!ha had finished her education after she had gone to her parents# house and had also been ta!ing tuition for students. It was also stated that during cross,e%amination =e!ha had answered all $uestions reasonably and there was no evidence that she was suffering from a mental disorder. In light of the above,mentioned facts the -ourt, $uashed the order given by the )rial -ourt and held that =avinder had not been able to show that =e!ha was still suffering intermittently from mental disorder. )herefore, the appeal was allowed

Sections Referred: Section 34 536 5iii6 of indu Marriage Act, 37::

A'it !aul vs. #ess% #ab%

Filed under: Sections 1<, 1., 18 &19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 Appellant: A9it /a#l Respondent: )ess2 )ab2 Citation: 1996 AI " 18+8 Court: In the i!h "o#rt of Kerala
This is a petition filed by Ajit Paul for annulment of his marriage to Bessy Baby on the grounds of insanity and physical underdevelopment of his wife. Facts A"it ;aul and Bessy Baby, both belonging to Syrian -hristian community married in a church in Muvattupuzha, Kerala. A"it alleges that Bessy stayed with him for only 3: days after which she went bac! to her parents# house. According to him, Bessy is schizophrenic, physically underdeveloped and impotent and that these facts were concealed from him before marriage. &urther, he stated that due to the physical and mental deficiencies, Bessy refused to have se%ual intercourse and the marriage had not been consummated. Bessy on the other hand denied the allegations and stated that her husband was not interested in normal se%ual intercourse and was interested in only oral se%. er claim was that deprivation of normal se%ual intercourse coupled with insistence only on oral se% amounted to physical and mental cruelty entitling her to a decree of divorce. bservations of the Court +ith regards to the first point as to whether Bessy was schizophrenic at the time of marriage and if she was physically underdeveloped and frigid and if the fact was concealed from him before marriage, the -ourt observed that no evidence to support such allegation was produced before the -ourt. &urther it was noted that no medical evidence or prescription to corroborate the same has been produced. Bessy had stated that she had been e%amined by two psychiatrists and a gynecologist who had certified her to be normal. )herefore, the -ourt found that there was no evidence to prove the alleged insanity of Bessy and the fraud by her and her family. )he -ourt then proceeded to e%amine whether the wife was entitled to divorce on the ground of cruelty in a petition that is filed for annulment of marriage. )he -ourt

loo!ed into several previous "udgments of various -ourts and concluded that a wife could see! a decree of divorce in a case of annulment on the ground of cruelty. In the above circumstances, the -ourt held that in the petition filed by A"it for nullity of marriage there was no valid ground for allowing the petition and that the claim of the wife that her husband had sub"ected her to cruelty was proved. )herefore, the petition for nullity was re"ected and the decree for divorce granted to the wife on grounds of cruelty. Sections Referred: Section 3I, 3:, 3* A 37 of the Indian /ivorce Act, 3*97

Cases Referred: =eynold ="amani vs. Knion of India, 5AI= 37*' S- 3'936 Mary Sonia Lachariah vs. Knion of India, 377: 536 KC) 9(( 5&B6 Mary Sonia Lachariah vs. Knion of India, 377: 536 KC) 9(( 5&B6 Sm. Meera Euha, AI= 378I -alcutta '99 5/B6 Abbas Ali vs. Mt. =abia Bibi, AI= 37:' Allahbad 3(: Sarah Abraham, AI= 37:7 Ker 8: 5/B6 Smt. Kamala /evi vs. Amar ?ath, AI= 3793 0AK 44 5/B6 ;rem ;ra!ash =ubin vs. Smt Sarla =ubin AI= 37*7 M; 4'9

'ircumstances or ,ssentail For ivorce / 0igh court and supreme court $udgments / All 'harges to be substantiated
Mu"esh Mathur vs. Smt. )eena Mathur

Filed *nder: Sections 1+, 14 ,1- ,iii- and +. of the ind# &arria!e Act, 199. Appellant: &#*esh &ath#r Respondent: Smt$ 5eena &ath#r Citation: AIR 1989 Ra9asthan 98 Court: In the i!h "o#rt of Ra9asthan Judges: %S 5erma and ?arooB asan
This is an appeal against the order of the Family Court to pay a permanent alimony p.m. to Veena. They had been granted divorce on the ground that his Veena was mentally disabled. Facts

)his is an appeal against the "udgment of the &amily -ourt, 0aipur on a petition for divorce filed by Mu!esh Mathur. Mu!esh was granted divorce on the ground that his wife, Jeena was suffering from a mental disorder. A permanent alimony at =s. 4:I<, p.m. was also granted to Jeena under Section ': of the indu Marriage Act. Mu!esh was aggrieved by this grant of alimony while Jeena made no grievance against any part of the &amily -ourt#s "udgment. )he main $uestion was whether there was any ground to interfere with the award of permanent alimony to Jeena under section ': of the Act. Arguments made on behalf of Mu"esh )he first contention was that Jeena was suffering from the illness even prior to the marriage and therefore the marriage was voidable and could be annulled by a decree of nullity under section 3' of the Act. .n this basis, it was argued that no permanent alimony under Section ': could be awarded. )he other argument was that the award of =s. 4:I<, per month as permanent alimony to Jeena was e%cessive in the circumstances of the case. According to the lawyer, the conduct of the parties and the state of affairs did not "ustify the award, which he argued, should in fact be much less. is main contention was that Jeena#s illness had been withheld from Mu!esh before the marriage and besides Mu!esh#s financial status did not enable him to pay this amount out of his earnings.

bservations of the Court )he -ourt e%amined both the arguments and held that Mu!esh had applied for divorce on grounds contained in sub,section 34 of the Act, which treated the marriage to be valid. According to the -ourt the first argument raised by Mu!esh#s lawyer did not have any merit since Mu!esh had obtained divorce on the basis that his marriage was valid. +ith respect to the second argument, the -ourt pointed out that it was on record that Mu!esh had accepted the proposal for marriage after meeting Jeena prior to the marriage. According to the -ourt, Jeena could not be blamed for the marriage ending in divorce. Knder these circumstances the -ourt did not see any reason to refuse the grant of alimony to Jeena. )he -ourt then too! up the issue of determination of the $uantum of the alimony. )he &amily -ourt had ta!en Mu!esh#s monthly salary to be at =s. 38'I<, per month. An amount of =s. 4:I<, p.m. had been awarded to Jeena as permanent alimony. )a!ing into account Mu!esh#s financial position and the prospects of increase of his salary, the -ourt held that the award of =s. 4:I<, p.m. as permanent alimony to Jeena could not be treated as e%cessive. )hus there was no "ustification for the reduction in that amount. -onse$uently the appeal failed and was dismissed. Sections Referred:

Section 3', 34 536 5iii6 and ': of the

indu Marriage Act, 377:

Mamata Mishra vs. Subhas Chandra Mishra

Filed *nder: Sections 1+ ,1- ,c- and .,ii- ,c- of the ind# &arria!e Act, 199. Section 19 of the ?amil2 "o#rtsD Act Appellant: &amata &ishra Respondent: S#bhas "handra &ishra Citation: 1<< ,+<<.- "#ttac* :a' 6imes Court: In the i!h "o#rt of 7rissa Judges: /K 6ri;ath2 and /radi; &ohant2
This is an appeal under ection !" of the Family Courts# Act filed by $amata $ishra challenging the judgment of the Family Court% Cuttac& that annulled her marriage on the ground that she was suffering from mental disorder. Facts Subhas -handra#s case was that his wife, Mamata Mishra was suffering from organic brain disorder and recurrent attac!s of epilepsy prior to their marriage. )his fact was concealed from him and his family and thus the marriage too! place fraudulently. e further stated that during Mamata#s stay in her matrimonial house, Subhas noticed some abnormality and loss of self,control in her. .ne day, at about 33 pm she fell in her bedroom and >lost her senses#, which she regained after a while. Some days later, she suffered from another attac! of fits and when she gained her senses she insisted that she should be ta!en to her parents# house otherwise she would commit suicide. It was further argued that Mamata was regularly ta!ing medicines in order to control these attac!s. She was also ta!en to the Assistant ;rofessor of ?eurology, S-B Medical -ollege and ospital for a medical chec! up. Before the doctor, Mamata disclosed that she was suffering from these fits for a year and a half, i.e. prior to their marriage. +hen it was confirmed that she was suffering from epileptic fits Subhas had no option but to file a petition before the 0udge in the &amily -ourt, -uttac! for a declaration that the marriage was voidable and prayed for its annulment by the decree of nullity.

Mamata filed her written statement denying these allegations and stated that her husband had ill,treated her and demanded additional funds by way of gifts after marriage. She also made an allegation of termination of her pregnancy by Subhas. In order to support his contentions, on behalf of Subhas three witnesses were e%amined, including the Assistant ;rofessor of ?eurology who had treated his wife. Si% documents, which included medical prescriptions and a letter, which was said to have been written by Mamata, were also submitted. .n behalf of Mamata as well three witnesses were three witnesses but no documents were filed in support of her case. After considering the evidence on record, the 0udge of the &amily -ourt came to the conclusion that Mamata was suffering from recurrent attac!s of epilepsy with mental disorder and this fact was concealed from Subhas and his family prior to the marriage. According to the -ourt the marriage had been solemnized by playing a fraud. )herefore, the 0udge annulled the marriage by passing the decree of nullity. Mamata then filed this appeal in the igh -ourt.

Arguments made on behalf of Mamata Mamata#s lawyer contended that the 0udge of the &amily -ourt had concluded that fraud was played by Mamata and her family members at the time of marriage, without appreciating the evidence on record. e further argued that a petition for the annulment of marriage could be entertained if this petition was filed within one year from the date of discovery of the fraud. According to him, in this case the so,called fraud was detected on ':.9.3778 but the petition was filed on 34.8.377*, i.e. beyond one year from the date of discovery of the fraud. Castly, he also argued that the term >epilepsy# had been omitted from Section : 5ii6 5c6 of the indu Marriage Act by recent amendment. )herefore, the 0udge of the &amily -ourt was wrong in holding that the marriage was solemnized by playing fraud. Arguments made on behalf of Subhas Subhas#s lawyer on the other hand, contended that marriage was solemnized on 3*.9.3778 by suppressing the fact that Mamata was suffering from epilepsy. Subse$uently, on '9.9.3778, on suspicion, she was ta!en to the Assistant ;rofessor of ?eurology for treatment and after investigation, it was confirmed that she was suffering from epilepsy. )hus, the fraud was detected on 3.3I.3778 and the petition for the annulment of marriage was filed on 34.8.377*, which was within one year from the date of discovery of the fraud. e further argued that the amendment came into force at the time when the matter was pending before the -ourt while the petition had been filed much before that. According to the lawyer, it was settled by the principle of law that an amendment would run prospectively and not retrospectively. )herefore, no illegality had been committed by the 0udge of the &amily -ourt. bservations of the Court

)he -ourt e%amined the evidence on record and held that there was no material, either oral or documentary, before the 0udge, &amily -ourt that Mamata was suffering from epileptic fits prior to or at the time of marriage. According to the -ourt, in order toestablish that Mamata played fraud, the onus lay with Subhas to collect convincing evidence. According to the pleadings of Subhasand the evidence of other witnesses, the disease was detected on ':.9.3778 and there was no material on record to show that Mamata was suffering from epilepsy prior to the time of marriage. .n the other hand, a witness e%amined on behalf of Mamata had stated that he !new her from childhood and had been present at the time of her marriage. After marriage, he had also been to Subhas#s house and had observed that both Subhas and Mamata were leading a happy married life. )he -ourt also observed that in his cross,e%amination, the doctor had not stated that epilepsy was non,curable. .n the other hand he had admitted that 9IM of the patients who suffered from this disease were curable. )he -ourt held that Mamata was not suffering from incurable epilepsy. )herefore, it could not be construed that she had played fraud on Subhas and his family. )he -ourt also e%amined the other two arguments e%tended by Mamata#s lawyer. +ith respect to the first contention that the petition for annulment of marriage was not filed within one year from the date of detection of the disease, the -ourt held that the petition was in fact presented within the specified time and thus this argument was dismissed. )he -ourt also held that the amendment to the Act would have no effect on the present proceedings since the case was pending before the -ourt at the time of the amendment. Accordingly, the -ourt dismissed this argument e%tended by Mamata#s lawyer, as well. A careful analysis of the facts and circumstances led the -ourt to conclude that though the petition of annulment of marriage was filed within time and the amendment in $uestion had no bearing on the case, it was found that no fraud had been committed by Mamata prior to or at the time of the marriage. As a result, the appeal was allowed and the "udgment given by the 0udge of the &amily -ourt was set aside. Sections Referred: Section 3' 536 5c6 and :5ii65c6 of the Section 37 of the &amily -ourts# Act indu Marriage Act, 377:

)C *homas vs. An *homas alias Kun'umol

Filed *nder: Section 18 of the Divorce Act, 1869 Appellant: 5" 6homas Respondent: An 6homas alias K#n9#mol Citation: AIR 1999 Kerala 1 Court: In the i!h "o#rt of Kerala Judges: KS Radha*rishnan and S San*ars#bban
This is a petition filed by VC Thomas for the annulment of this marriage on the ground that his wife was mentally ill at the time of marriage. Facts J- )homas filed this petition under Section 3* of the Indian /ivorce Act to declare that his marriage to An )homas was null and void on the ground that she was of unsound mind at the time of marriage. )heir marriage had been solemnized at a -hurch following which they lived together for 4I days. According to )homas during this period his wife e%hibited abnormal behavior and mental illness. )hereafter she was admitted in a hospital and was treated there for about '9 days by /r A"ith )homas. Cater, she was ta!en to the Medical -ollege, Kottayam where she was admitted for about 38 days under the treatment of /r. 0ohn Mathai. According to )homas, his wife, Kun"umol, had been suffering from mental illness for about a year and a half prior to their marriage. e also claimed that she was impotent. Aggrieved on these grounds he filed an appeal for nullity of their marriage in the /istrict -ourt. )he /istrict -ourt issued a notice to Kun"umol but she did not appear in the -ourt. Cater an application was filed for appointment of her father as her guardian and a notice was issued to him. owever, her father also did not appear. Subse$uently the -ourt appointed Smt. K Bhagyam, advocate as her -ourt Euardian. She contacted Kun"umol and filed her ob"ection stating that after marriage the parties had lived together for 9I days and Kun"umol was not suffering from any mental illness as alleged by )homas. It was also stated that after marriage, while )homas and Kun"umol were traveling on a scooter, Kun"umol happened to see a road accident and due to this shoc! she became withdrawn and had to undergo some treatment. She denied the allegations of impotency and unsoundness of mind that were made against her.

)he /istrict -ourt e%amined the oral and documentary evidence. ?o evidence was produced by Kun"umol in her defense. )he /istrict -ourt re"ected the ground of impotency but allowed the petition after finding that Kun"umol was of unsound mind. Bmphasis was laid on the oral evidence of the doctor who had treated Kun"umol in the Medical -ollege, Kottayam as well as on the evidence given by )homas#s neighbor. )he case was then referred to the igh -ourt. +hen the matter came up for hearing at the igh -ourt, the -ourt appointed A0 0ose, Advocate, as -ourt Euardian. e had met Kun"umol at her residence. According to him she was capable of leading a normal life1 she was ta!ing care of her parents, coo!ing food and behaving properly. )homas#s lawyer on the other hand contended that in the absence of oral or documentary evidence on the side of Kun"umol, it should be presumed that the allegations raised by )homas for annulment of the marriage were proved. e also relied heavily on the oral evidence given by /r 0ohn Mathai who had treated her. bservations of the Court )he -ourt e%amined the arguments e%tended by )homas#s lawyer and held that even though according to the evidence of the doctor it had been stated that Kun"umol had a previous history of a similar mental illness one and half years bac!, there was no oral or documentary evidence to prove that. Bven though a neighbor who had been e%amined in the -ourt had stated that Kun"umol showed signs of mental illness at the time of marriage, nobody from the -hurch or any other independent witness was e%amined to establish that. )he -ourt also referred to a previous decision of the Supreme -ourt in a similar case. Based on the available material the -ourt stated that it was not in a position to hold that Kun"umol was suffering from a mental illness at the time of or before her marriage. owever, since Kun"umol had failed to appear in the -ourt, )homas was given an opportunity to collect more evidence in order to establish that Kun"umol was suffering from a mental illness prior to or at the time of her marriage. In order to enable )homas to do so the -ourt remitted the matter bac! to the /istrict -ourt, Kottayam. )he reference was disposed of accordingly. Sections Referred: Sections 3* of the /ivorce Act, 3*97

Cases Referred: =am ?arian vs. =ameshwari, AI= 37** S- ''9I

$evi Sharma vs. Chander Mohan Sharma

Filed *nder: Sections 1+, 14 ,1- ,iii- and 14 ,1- ,ia- of ind# &arria!e Act, 1 9.. Appellant: Smt$ Devi Sharma Respondent: "hander &ohan Sharma Citation: AIR +<<4 /#n9ab and ar2ana 4+8 Court: In the i!h "o#rt of /#n9ab and ar2ana Judges: 5ina2 &ittal
This is an appeal filed by 'evi harma against the grant of the decree of divorce by the Trial (udge on grounds of mental illness. Facts -hander Mohan Sharma married /evi Sharma as per indu rites and ceremonies. ?o child was born out of the wedloc!. -hander Mohan claimed that during the wedding ceremony, when they were going around the holy fire 5pheras6, his wife, /evi Sharma had fallen unconscious when only four pheras had been performed. According to him, the pheras had not been completed subse$uently since the family members of /evi Sharma had claimed that she was ill on account of an attac! by ghosts. -hander Mohan contended that since the wedding ceremony had not been completed his marriage to /evi Sharma was null and void. e also claimed that the abnormal behavior and acts of his wife since their marriage amounted to such cruelty as per which he was also entitled to see! divorce. According to him, he had wor!ed in the Ministry of ome Affairs and the father of /evi Sharma also wor!ed in the same agency. -hander Mohan contended that as a result of their professional association he had been offered the proposal of marriage with /evi, to which he had agreed. e however, alleged that he had not been allowed to meet /evi alone before marriage. e further claimed that it was only after the wedding that he had found that /evi displayed strange behaviors. . In order to show that his wife was suffering from a mental disorder -hander Mohan cited many e%amples, which included her very peculiar food habits, and the fact that she did not !now how to coo! or that she used to coo! in dirty utensils etc. e also stated that during the period when they were married he had been posted out of India to Surinam where he had found her behavior to be very upsetting. .n one or two occasions /evi had torn off her clothes, and had once as!ed him to commit suicide so that she could get a "ob in his place in the ministry.

In response to these allegations, /evi Sharma submitted a reply in which she denied all the allegations leveled against her by -hander Mohan. She stated that her husband and his family had not been satisfied by the dowry she had got with her and were harassing her because of this reason. She further claimed that the marriage ceremony had ta!en place in a proper manner and her husband had made up stories in order to nullify the marriage. /evi Sharma also stated that she had filed a case against her husband and his family in the )rial -ourt against the demand for dowry. Bven her father had made a complaint against the dowry demands to higher authorities. )he )rial -ourt had ta!en up the following issues@ +hether the marriage performed between the two parties was complete as per the indi rites and customs or was it voidable2 If the preceding issue was not proved, could the marriage be dissolved on the grounds that /evi Sharma had treated -hander Mohan Sharma with cruelty2 +hether /evi Sharma was suffering from such degree of unsoundness of mind that he could not e%pected to live with her2 In order to support the claims the lawyer on behalf of -hander Mohan Sharma e%amined the evidence given by a psychiatrist who stated that /evi was suffering from Schizophrenia. .n account of this the )rial 0udge had held that since her disorder was incurable, the decree of grant of divorce could be allowed as per Section 34 536 5iii6 of the indu Marriage Act, 37::. owever, he had dismissed the fact that the marriage was void and that /evi had treated her husband in a cruel manner. /evi Sharma then filed the present petition against this order of the )rial 0udge. She also prayed that since the marriage had been dissolved on the grounds that she was suffering from a mental disorder she should be allowed to get herself e%amined at AIIMS or ;EI, -handigarh. Subse$uently, the Medical Board in ;EI, -handigarh, e%amined her. bservations of the Court )he -ourt e%amined the arguments given by both the parties. )he -ourt too! into consideration the report given by the Medical Board, ;EI. /evi Sharma had been e%amined using psychometric tools, and case history. Based on these tests and her medical history the Board had concluded that she was not suffering from any mental illness at the time of the e%amination. According to the -ourt, the previous evidence given by the psychiatrist that /evi was suffering from Schizophrenia was not based on any tests, reports or e%amination of previous history. )he -ourt also stated that /evi had been sub"ected to a lengthy cross,e%amination on many occasions. According to the -ourt, she had not displayed any peculiar behaviors during that time, which also proved that she was not suffering from a ma"or mental illness. &urthermore, the -ourt opined that -handra Mohan and his family had mistreated her.

In view of these findings, the -ourt reversed the "udgments passed by the )rial 0udge. )he -ourt also dismissed the other two arguments made by -hander Mohan viz., the marriage was void and that /evi had treated him with cruelty. )he appeal was thereby allowed. Sections Referred: Section 34 536 5iii6 of the indu Marriage Act, 37::

'ircumstances or ,ssentail For ivorce / 0igh court and supreme court $udgments / All 'harges to be substantiated
Al"a Sharma vs. Abhinesh Chandra Sharma

Filed *nder: Sections ., 1+ ,1-, 14 and 14 ,1- ind# &arria!e Act,19.., ind# &arria!e ,Amendment- Act, 1986 Appellant: Smt$ Al*a Sharma Respondent: Abhinesh "handra Sharma Citation: ?irst A;;eal 1o$ 8+ of 1989G Decided 7n: <0$<+$1991 ,Unre;ortedCourt: In the i!h "o#rt &adh2a /radesh Judges: D$&$ Dharmadhi*ari
Facts Al!a Sharma and Abhinesh -handra Sharma got married according to indu rites and rituals. )hey lived together for about 3' days after the marriage. After which Al!a went to her parentsN house for a few days and then again stayed with Abhinesh for about 8 days. )heir total stay together was for about 37 days. +ithin a year of marriage Abhinesh filed a petition under Section 3' of the indu Marriage Act for declaring the marriage null. It was stated in the petition that soon after the marriage, on the honeymoon night itself he discovered that his wife was abnormal and erratic in behavior. According to him, Al!a refused se%ual intercourse on the very first night and showed all signs of mental unsoundness. e also stated that during Al!aNs second visit, she became e%tremely uncontrollable and violent. At that time a psychiatrist had to be called who e%amined her and stated that she was suffering from a mental disorder called NschizophreniaN and had been under his treatment even before the marriage. Al!a denied all these allegations. )he )rial -ourt however found the evidence to be in favor of Abhinesh and accordingly declared the marriage as null. Al!a then filed the present appeal against the order.

)he main contention made by Al!aNs lawyer was that according to Section 3' of the Act the mental disorder should be of such a serious nature that the person would be unfit for procreation of children. It was further stated that there was no evidence to show that Al!aNs alleged mental disorder was of such an e%tent that she would not be able to procreate. )herefore it was contended that the )rial -ourt had committed an error in granting the decree of nullity of marriage. AbhineshNs lawyer stated that the mental disorder in a spouse was a condition that would ma!e him<her both unfit for marriage as also for the procreation and therefore, if any one of the two conditions e%isted, it would be a good ground for the nullity of the marriage. bservations of the Court )he -ourt first analyzed the point if AbhineshNs appeal for nullity of marriage was valid according to the relevant provisions of Section 3' of the Act. )he -ourt referred to several previous cases and also e%amined the nature of Schizophrenia as a mental disorder by referring to its medical and legal definitions. .n the basis of these, the -ourt stated that the term Nprocreation of childrenO should not be construed in a narrow sense as to only mean the capacity to give birth to children 5refer to $uotes6. According to the -ourt a sound mental condition was one of the essential $ualifications for marriage and unsoundness of mind could serve as a valid ground for nullity of marriage if the appeal was made because the spouse was unable to discharge his<her marital obligations because of the mental disorder. )he -ourt then went on to critically analyze the evidence given by both the parties to establish whether or not Al!a suffered from a mental disorder of a serious nature. )he -ourt e%amined the evidence given by Abhinesh and made a reference to the following abnormal behaviors alleged by Abhinesh@ Firstly, Abhinesh contended that in the first few days of marriage, whenever he had made advances towards Al!a for performing se%ual acts, she had repelled him and as a result he had never been able to satisfactorily accomplish se%ual intercourse. e also stated that sometimes he had found that her face would terrify him and on some occasions he had found her loo!ing at him with e%treme hatred. Secondly, it was also claimed that Al!a never paid any attention to the instructions she was given and the $uestions she was as!ed. According to him she always behaved and acted according to her own wishes. e had also found her chattering to herself in solitude and whatever she spo!e on such occasions was incoherent. Many more such instances were stated in order to e%plicate this point. Thirdly, it was also stated that on one occasion she had left the gas on and the entire !itchen had been filled with gas. .n one occasion, she had lost her purse. Abhinesh also stated that at one time she had urinated on the NverandaN in the presence of his family members. An instance was also mentioned in which Al!a had

attempted to assault Abhinesh in the early hours of the morning for no apparent reason. AbhineshNs mother and brother supported these allegations. )he psychiatrist who had e%amined and treated Al!a also gave his evidence. e stated that prior to her marriage she had come to him for consultation. e had also presented the relevant entry made in his patientNs register. )he psychiatrist had testified that during her first visit he had found her to be in an e%cited state and had diagnosed her illness as Schizophrenia of paranoid type. e also confirmed that he had paid her a visit after her marriage at AbhineshNs house. At that time he had found her to be in a frenzied state, violent and crying. )he psychiatrist had also been cross,e%amined by Al!aNs lawyer. )o specific $uestions regarding the degree of mental disorder his reply was that Al!a was a 3IIM schizophrenic patient. e however also admitted that when he had re, e%amined her he had found that she had improved by at least :IM. It was further stated that some electric shoc!s were also given to patients suffering from this disorder and he had administered such shoc!s to Al!a in the past. e also believed that if proper environment and guidance were provided then she could improve. In response to these allegations, Al!a claimed that on the first night of the honeymoon she had been terribly upset because her husband had confessed to her that his father had left his wife and was living with another woman. She also stated that Abhinesh had further stated that in case a re,marriage or such an incident happened with him, Al!a would have to mee!ly submit. According to her these disclosures had upset her and as a result she had been nervous and fearful that night. owever, in her written submission, Al!a had admitted that she had been getting treatment from the psychiatrist. Al!aNs lawyer had strongly criticized the testimony given by the psychiatrist. e had argued that the psychiatristNs testimony should not be given much weight because of two reasons. &irstly, because he was distantly related to Abhinesh and secondly because he had shown over,zealousness by creating false evidence in the form of a prescription that had Al!aNs name on it. It was further argued that the psychiatrist had !nown both the parties and since he was distantly related to Abhinesh he should have told him about her illness. It was also contended that since the couple had lived together only for 37 days, there would not have been enough time for Abhinesh to reach the conclusion that Al!a was suffering from a mental disorder of a serious nature. )he lawyer also argued that Al!a had attained a post,graduate degree and was therefore highly educated. According to him the allegations of a mental disorder were not true.

In favor of this point he also stated that since Al!a had been able to withstand the cross,e%amination and $uestioning in the -ourt, it was in his opinion $uite clear that she was not suffering from the alleged mental disorder. After analyzing these arguments the -ourt opined that they could not re"ect the psychiatristNs evidence "ust because he was distantly related to Abhinesh. )he -ourt further held that Al!a had been suffering from some !ind of mental illness and the erratic behaviors described by Abhinesh were not mere trivialities. Accordingly, the -ourt affirmed the decision of the )rial -ourt and granted the decree of nullity of marriage to Abhinesh. Sections Referred: Sections :, 3'536, 34536 of the indu Marriage Act, 37::

Cases Referred: A"itrai Shiv ;rasad Mehta vs. Bai Jasumati, AI= 3797 Eu" (* Mand!ishore Shaligram Jyas vs. Munnibai, 3787 M;C0 3I:, AI= 3787 Madh ;ra (: Madhusudan vs. Smt. -handri!a, AI= 378: Madh ;ra 38( Smt. Asha Shrivastava vs. =.K. Shrivastava, AI= 37*3 /el ':4 =a"inder Singh vs. Smt. ;omilla, AI= 37*8 /el '*: =am ?arayan Eupta vs. Smt. =ameshwari, AI= 37** S- ''9I +hysall vs. +hysall, 537:76 4 All B= 4*7 54796 Bennet vs. Bennett, 537976 3 All B= :47 ;ronab Kumar Ehose vs. Krishna Ehose, AI= 378: -al 3I7 S.M. Anima =oy vs. ;robodh Mohan =oy, AI= 3797 -al 4I( Madhusudan /as vs. Smt. ?arayani Bai, AI= 37*4 S- 33(

+uotes from the Judgement O In conte%t of Section : of the Act and the sub"ect dealt with therein, namely to lay down conditions for a valid indu marriage, the word NprocreateN has to be assigned a wider legal meaning that is, according to me, capacity of a spouse Nto give birth as also to rear up and bring up children.N A spouse although not sterile and medically fit to give birth to children may still be unfit, due to his or her mental disorder, to loo! after and bring up children.O

&eorge Joseph vs. Alphonsa alias ,ovel% Mathew and another

Filed *nder: Section 19 of the Divorce Act ,0 of 1869Appellant: (eor!e %ose;h Respondent: Al;honsa alias :ovel2 &athe' and another Citation: AIR 1999 Kerala +. Court: In the i!h "o#rt of Kerala Judges: &rs$ K K Usha and ( Sivara9an
This is a case where in )eorge (oseph approached the *cclesiastical Tribunal for the nullity of his marriage on the ground that his wife suffered from mental illness at the time of marriage Facts Eeorge 0oseph and Covely Mathew#s marriage was solemnized as per the rites and ceremonies prevailing in the Syrian -hristian -ommunity. +ithin a year of marriage, Eeorge 0oseph approached Bcclesiastical )ribunal of )halachery /iocese for nullity of his marriage. )he )ribunal declared the marriage between them as null and void. Ma"or Archbishop#s )ribunal then sent the order for confirmation. )he main contention of Eeorge was that Covely#s family members were well aware of the fact that Covely was a >lunatic# prior to the marriage and that her insanity was incurable in nature. According to him, Covely#s family members had fraudulently concealed this fact from him before marriage and therefore his marriage with her should be declared null and void. It had been alleged by Eeorge that Covely displayed abnormal behavior on the first day of marriage itself. It was stated that at the time of the marriage ceremony Covely was overly tal!ative and was laughing continuously. e also contended that the marriage was not consummated on the first night of marriage since Covely refused to have se%ual intercourse with him on the ground that she was having her menstrual period. After the wedding, Eeorge found that Covely was forgetful in nature and would start tal!ing about inconsistent matters without reason. In order to corroborate this allegation many instances were cited. According to Eeorge, Covely could not sleep at night and once at night she started crying that she wanted to sleep ne%t to her mother and she even tried to open the door and run out. About a month after the marriage, Covely#s father was told about her behavior. It was stated that Covely was then ta!en to the psychiatry department of a hospital and she was admitted there. Eeorge also alleged that Covely#s father told the doctor that Covely#s brother and sister were also insane. According to Eeorge, Covely was discharged from the hospital after three days and she came to his place after that. e also stated that during the 39 days when they had stayed together, the marriage had not been consummated because of Covely#s abnormal behavior. It was argued by Eeorge#s lawyer that when Covely stopped ta!ing medicines she became ill again and ran away from the house. She was then admitted in another hospital where she continued her treatment for the ne%t 3I days. It was also stated

that she was violent during this time and she even tried to stab her father. According to Eeorge, she was still undergoing treatment for insanity. It had also been alleged that her mental illness had been inherited and besides her, her mother, uncle, brother and younger sister were also suffering from mental illness and this fact was concealed from him at the time of the marriage. &urther, he also stated that the Bcclesiastical )ribunal of )halachery /iocese declared the marriage null and void. )he order had been sent for confirmation to the Ma"or Archbishop#s )ribunal. In response to these allegations, Covely filed a counter,affidavit in which she denied all the allegations against her. According to her, their marriage had been consummated on the first day of marriage itself and accusation that she had refused to have se%ual intercourse with her husband was false. She also denied the allegations that she was ta!ing medicines etc. In the counter affidavit she made an allegation that her father,in,law had made overtures towards her and even when she had complained about this to her husband, he had not done anything about it. She further stated that because of this reason she became upset and was admitted in the hospital for treatment. She also claimed that on returning home, she stopped ta!ing the medicines that caused further trouble for her because of which she was ta!en to another hospital. Covely also submitted that the certificates issued by the psychiatrists showed very clearly that her problem had started one month after the wedding and she had no previous history of any mental illness. She also denied the allegation that her uncle, brother and younger sister were suffering from mental illnesses. According to her, the marriage proposal had come through Eeorge#s sister who was staying at a distance of only about 'II meters from her paternal home. She also stated that she was not aware of any order that was passed by the Bcclesiastical )ribunal. It was submitted that she was an accomplished girl who was capable of performing her marital obligations. In order to substantiate this point Covely also stated that she had appeared for the ;re,/egree e%amination of the Kniversity of -alicut. )he case went to the igh -ourt and the Single 0udge held that there was an absolute lac! of evidence to show that Covely was mentally ill at the time of her marriage. According to the 0udge, no material had been submitted by Eeorge to show that she was under treatment for a mental illness before her marriage. )he 0udge also did not accept the contention that the consent for marriage had been obtained in a fraudulent manner from Eeorge. According to the Single 0udge, even if Covely had turned >lunatic# after her marriage, it was not a ground for decree of nullity of marriage under Section 37 546 of the Indian /ivorce Act. Aggrieved by the "udgment of the igher Bench. bservations of the Court igh -ourt of Kerala, Eeorge filed this appeal in a

)he -ourt held that the main $uestion to be established was that whether Covely was a >lunatic# at the time of her marriage, not before or after. )he -ourt then went on to e%amine the evidence to see whether it could be proved by Eeorge that she was insane at the time of their marriage. )he -ourt e%amined the evidence given by the psychiatrists and held that in the testimony of the psychiatrists there was nothing to show that she had been suffering from any mental illness at the time of her marriage. )he certificates and other documents submitted by them only showed that she was suffering from some form of mental illness after her marriage. Similarly, the -ourt found that the evidence given by other witnesses P Eeorge and his sister did not in any way show that she was a mentally ill person at the time of her wedding. &inally, the -ourt e%amined the evidence given by a family friend of Eeorge. e claimed that he had gone to Covely#s paternal home only once and on going there, he had found her behaving in a very strange manner. According to him, her father had told him at that time that she was suffering from a mental illness. e also stated that her brother, sister and mother were suffering from mental illnesses. )he -ourt found it difficult to believe the testimony given by him since there was not much evidence that supported his testimony. .n the basis of these arguments the -ourt held that the nature of evidence did not satisfactorily prove that Covely was insane at the time of marriage so as to get a decree for nullity of marriage. According to the -ourt, Eeorge was also not able to prove that his consent for marriage was obtained by fraud. Accordingly, the -ourt affirmed the "udgment of the Single 0udge and dismissed the appeal. )he lawyer appearing on behalf of Eeorge had also contended that Eeorge was a young person and after 39 days of marital life, he has been living separately from his wife. According to him, it was unfair to e%pect Eeorge to continue in this state when his wife was unable to lead a normal married life due to her mental illness. )he -ourt was unable to accept the above contention for two reasons. &irstly, the -ourt referred to a previous case and held that according to that case, a court was not empowered to go outside the contours of the /ivorce Act for granting a decree of nullity. Secondly, the -ourt held that evidence e%amined, did not show that Covely was of an incurably unsound mind. )he -ourt also mentioned the fact that for some cases where one of the spouses becomes incurably unsound in mind, a decree for divorce may be granted under the indu Marriage Act. owever, the -ourt held that -hristians in Kerala were still governed by the provisions of the /ivorce Act, 3*97 and therefore even in cases of incurable mental illness of a spouse after marriage, no decree for dissolution of marriage could be obtained. Sections Referred: Section 37 of the /ivorce Act 5( of 3*976

Cases Referred:

Mery Sonia Lachariah v. Knion of India, 377: 536 KC) 9(( Eeorge Sebastian v. Molly 0oseph, 377( 5'6 KC) 4*8

Ram -arain &upta vs. Smt. Rameshwari &upta

Filed *nder: Section 14 ,1- ,iii- of the ind# &arria!e Act, 199. Appellant: Ram 1arain (#;ta Respondent: Smt$ Ramesh'ari (#;ta Citation: AIR 1988 S#;reme "o#rt ++6< Court: In the S#;reme "o#rt Judges: A/ Sen and &1 5en*atachaliah
This is an appeal filed by +am ,arain )upta challenging the decision of the -igh Court which reversed the Trial Court judgment dissolving his marriage on the ground that his wife was a schi.ophrenic. Facts =am ?arain Eupta and =ameshwari Eupta#s marriage was solemnized at 0hansi in the year 3787. In the year 37*4, =am filed a suit for the dissolution of marriage on the ground that his wife was a schizophrenic. In his suit, =am pleaded that =ameshwari suffered from a mental,disorder, psychiatrically recognized as >schizophrenia#, which was of such a severity that she was rendered unsociable and was also given to violent propensities. It was further stated that she was treated by the doctors at the /epartment of ;sychiatry at the Medical -ollege, 0hansi. owever, despite competent professional treatment her mental condition continued to deteriorate to the point that she started ma!ing suicidal attempts and displaying violent and aggressive behavior towards others. =am stressed the fact that her mental disorder was of such a degree that he could not be e%pected to live with her. )he )rial -ourt framed the necessary issues stemming from the pleadings. =am called /r. Eanesh /att Shu!la, ead of the /ept. of ;sychiatry, Mahrani Ca%mi Bai Medical -ollege, 0hansi to support his version. =am also e%amined Eyasi =am who was an artisan and who claimed that during one of his visits to =am#s house for some odd "ob, he had seen =ameshwari beating up small children and conducting herself in a disorderly manner. =am 0an!i ;rasad, who was said to be the private,home,teacher of =am#s nephews also corroborated =am#s version. According to 0an!i ;rasad there were oddities in =ameshwari#s behavior and she also displayed violent tendencies. &urther, in order to show that =ameshwari was a >violent,lunatic#, =am used the medical certificates issued by various doctors. =am also narrated certain incidents wherein =ameshwari

had e%hibited unprovo!ed violence towards his sisters and had inflicted in"uries upon them. =ameshwari on the other hand appeared in the )rial -ourt and also submitted a copy of the order passed by the Magistrate in the proceedings under the Cunacy Act initiated by =am for committing her to a mental asylum. In those proceedings, the Magistrate, after e%amining her, found no abnormality in her that would re$uire institutionalized treatment. )he )rial -ourt accepted =am#s case and recorded a finding that =ameshwari was afflicted with schizophrenia, which was dangerous for her as well as for those who lived with her and granted a decree for the dissolution of the marriage. )he case then went to the igh -ourt and the igh -ourt reversed the "udgment given by the )rial -ourt. )he igh -ourt pointed out that even though the evidence indicated the possibility of some mental,disorder, the re$uirement of the law was regarding the e%istence of the re$uisite degree and the nature of the disorder that could alone "ustify a reasonable contention on =am#s part that he could not live with his wife. )his however was not established for this case. )he igh -ourt also e%amined the literature on >schizophrenia# and felt that it would be necessary for =am to go further and establish the degree and severity of the mental illness, which would satisfy the re$uirement of the ground for dissolution of marriage envisaged in Section 34 536 5iii6 of the indu Marriage Act. )he igh -ourt concluded that =am had not shown that the mental illness of his wife was of such a !ind and intensity to "ustify the dissolution of marriage. )he igh -ourt also noticed certain shifts in emphasis in the two certificates that had been issued by /r. Eanesh /att Shu!la. )he first certificate dated 3*,:,37*4 did not contain any specific reference to the severity of the disease or to the violent propensities attributed to =ameshwari which tended to endanger the safety of others. )he later certificate dated ',8,37*4 however sought to supply this element. )he igh -ourt also noticed that certain events had ta!en place on 3,8,37*4, in the wa!e which the certificate dated ',8,37*4 came into e%istence. )he igh -ourt referred to the evidence on record, which disclosed that at 33.(: am on 3,8,37*4, =ameshwari had lodged an &I= with the "urisdictional police complaining that she had been assaulted, first by her husband#s nephew and then by the members of =am#s family. =ameshwari also complained that =am#s sisters and mother had threatened to e%tinguish her life by setting her ablaze. )he igh -ourt further noted that an attempt was made to admit her to an asylum the ne%t day and the medical certificate was also issued the ne%t day. )he igh -ourt also evaluated the evidence of the artisan and the home tutor and pointed out the intrinsic improbabilities of the evidence and conse$uent unacceptability of their versions. In particular, 0an!i ;rasad, the home,tutor, had been unable to give =ameshwari#s description, i.e. her comple%ion, height etc. .n this point the -ourt held that the inability of the witness in giving =ameshwari#s physical description showed that his entire statement was a tutored one.

)he igh -ourt also referred to =ameshwari#s grievance that the environment of hostility and harassment to which she had been sub"ected to by =am#s sisters and parents had ta!en its toll and had rendered her apprehensive and irritable. )he igh -ourt held that =ameshwari#s case had to be seen against this bac!ground. Accordingly, the igh -ourt reversed the "udgment of dissolution of marriage passed by the )rial -ourt. =am then filed an appeal in the Supreme -ourt challenging the decision of the -ourt in not granting the decree of dissolution of marriage. bservations of the Court )he -ourt considered the evidence of the case along with the literature on mental health. )he -ourt held that mere branding of a person as schizophrenic would not be enough for the grant of divorce. )he appeal was accordingly dismissed and the -ourt upheld the "udgment of the igh -ourt. Sections Referred: Section 34 536 5iii6 of the indu Marriage Act, 377: igh

Cases Referred: Mc Coughin vs. .# Brain, 537*46 3 A- (3I@ 537*'6 ' All B= '7*@ 537*'6 ' +C= 7*' Smt. =ita =oy vs. Sitesh -handra, AI= 37*' -al 34* Bennett vs. Bennett, 537976 3 All B= :47

'ircumstances or ,ssential for ivorce / 0igh court and Supreme court )udgemetns
Sharda vs. $harampal Sharda filed an appeal against the order of the igh -ourt of =a"asthan allowing /harmpalNs re$uest for medical e%amination to prove unsoundness of mind. Facts Sharda and /harampal were married according to the indu rites. After about four years of marriage, /harampal filed a petition for divorce on grounds of unsoundness of mind of his spouse. e also filed an application see!ing permission to get Sharda medically e%amined to assess her mental status.

Sharda ob"ected to this on the ground that the court had no authority to pass such directions. ?onetheless she had to submit herself to the medical e%amination. Against the said order, she filed a =evision before the igh -ourt which was also dismissed. )herefore, she approached the Supreme -ourt. Arguments on behalf of Sharda )wo main points were made in support of her appeal , &irstly, compelling a person to undergo medical e%amination by an order of the court is in violation of Art.'3 of the -onstitution of India 5=ight to personal liberty6 Secondly, in the absence of specific empowering provisions, a court dealing with matrimonial cases is not authorized to order a medical e%amination. Arguments on behalf of $harampal )hese, two points were countered on behalf of /harampal by stating that 3. a &amily -ourt was essential to understand whether Sharda was suffering from Nunsoundness of mindN, a mental disorder and it was thus essential that the -ourt should be entitled to ta!ing e%pert opinion. '. that this medical e%amination would not infringe on the right to personal liberty guaranteed under the -onstitution of India. bservations of the Court )he -ourt noted that for the purpose of grant of divorce on grounds of unsoundness of mind, it was necessary to establish that the situation was grave enough to warrant a brea!ing of the marriage 5refer to $uotes6. )he -ourt further observed that a disorder of thought, behaviour and mind leading to unsoundness of mind could be a ma"or cause for filing for divorce. )he -ourt also noted that it was important ta!e a doctorNs opinion about the state of mind before granting the divorce 5refer to $uotes6. )he court e%plained that a medical e%amination by the e%perts would lead to the truth of the matter and also help remove misunderstandings between the parties. In may need to be remembered that in cases of matrimonial disputes, the -ourt also plays a conciliatory role for which this information may prove beneficial. )hus, it would be incorrect to contend that the -ourt has no power at all. =egarding the point about Oviolation of rights of personal libertyO, the court e%plained that its concern was to investigate whether the person said to be mentally ill was in a position to defend himself. )he e%planation continued to describe the difference between any medical test and a test carried out by a psychiatrist. In addition, the necessity for treatment would only be decided after the e%amination and diagnosis of a properly $ualified psychiatrist. .ver and above all this, the court pointed out that it to be satisfied whether the person re$uired ade$uate protection by way of legal aid to ensure that there was no in"ustice committed especially since the person was unable to understand the proceedings.

After outlining the law relating to right to privacy in India, the -ourt observed that it was relevant in the conte%t to notice that certain laws had been enacted by the ;arliament where Nthe accusedN could be sub"ected to certain medical e%aminations. In all such cases where divorce was sought on issues li!e impotency, unsoundness of mind etc, medical e%amination was necessary to arrive at a conclusion whether the allegation made was correct or not. )hus, to confuse the issue of violation of right to privacy, or right to personal liberty under Article '3 of the -onstitution of India then it would not be possible to arrive at the re$uired conclusion. Summing up, the -ourt held that , 3. A Matrimonial -ourt has the power to order a person to undergo medical test. '. ;assing of such an order would not be violative of Article '3 of the -onstitution. 4. )he -ourt should e%ercise such a power if the applicant has a strong case and if there was sufficient material before the -ourt. If despite the order of the -ourt, the respondent refused to submit to this medical e%amination, and then the court would be entitled to draw an adverse inference. (eld: )he -ourt opined that igh -ourt cannot be said to have erred in the passing of the "udgment and dismissed the appeal. Sections Referred: Sections :, 3'5i6 5b6 and 34536 5iii6 of Article '3 of -onstitution of India Mental ealth Act, 37*8 indu Marriage Act, 37::

Cases Referred: Eoutam Kundu vs. State of +B, AI= 3774 S- ''7:@ 537746 AI= S-+ '4':@ 3774 -ri C0 4'44 Bipinchandra Shantilal Bhatt v. Madhuriben, AI= 3794 Eu" ':I Smt. =evamma vs. Shri Shanthappa, AI= 378' Mysore 3:8 Shanti /evi vs. =am ?ath, AI= 378' ; A '8I M. Jen!atachallapati v. Aro"a, AI= 37*3 Madras 4(7 ;A Anbu Anandari vs. Siva!umari, AI= 3777 Madras '4' Smt ?ingamma vs. -hi!!aiah A another, AI= 'III Kar :I E Jen!atanarayan vs. Kurupati Ca%mi /evi, AI= 37*: A; 3 Birendra Kumar Biswas vs. emlata Biswas, AI= 37'3 -al (:7 Eeorge Swamidoss 0oseph vs. Miss Sundari Bdward, 37:( 98 Mad C+ 989 AS Mohammad Ibrahim Kmmal vs. Shai! Mohammad Mara!ayar A another, AI= 37(7 Mad '7' =am ?arain Eupta v. =ameshwari, AI= 37** S- ''9I M; Sharma vs. Satish -handra, AI= 37:( S- '78 Khara! Singh vs. State of K;, AI= 3794 S- 3'7: = =a"agopal vs. State of )amil ?adu A others, AI= 377: S- '9( ;eopleNs Knion of -ivil Ciberties vs. Knion of India, 3778 3 SS- 4I3 Eovind vs. State of M; Aanother, AI= 378: S- 348*

Mr. NQN vs. ospital NLN, 377* * S-- '79 Mr. NQN vs. ospital NLN, 'II4 3 S-- :II M. Ji"aya vs. -hairman, Singareni -ollieries, AI= 'II3 Andh ;ra :I' St. Eeorges ealth -are ?. .S )rust vs. S. =egina v. -ollins B%. ;arte S. 377* 4 +C= 749 In re M.B. An Adult Medical )reatment, 3778 ' &-= :(3 -ostello =oberts vs. Knited Kingdom, 37:: 37 B == 33' Lurigh vs. ;ierce 537*46 83( & 'nd 94' M. Jen!atachallapati vs. ?. Saro"a, AI= 37*3 Madras 4(7 State 5/elhi Administration6 vs. Eulzarilal )andon, AI= 3787 S- 34*' S vs. S and +. vs. .fficial Ci$uidator, 5378'6 A- '(@ 378I 4 All B= 3I8 B.=.B. vs. 0.B. 5379*6 ' All B= 3I'4@ 379* 4 +C= :99 +. vs. +. 537946 ' Al B= *(3@ 537946 4 +C= :(I State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu .ghad, AI= 3793 S- 3*I* ; Sreeramamurthy vs. Ca!shmi!anthan, AI= 37:: Andh ;ra 'I8 Mr. Sharma vs. Satish -handra, AI= 37:( S- 4II Eeorge Swamidass 0oseph vs. Ms. Sundari Bdward 537:(6 98 Mad C+ 989 Birendra KumarBiswas vs. emlata Biswas, AI= 37'3 -al (:7 B. vs. B. 537I36 ; 47@ 8I C0 ; ( +. vs. S. 37I: ; '43@ 74 C) (:9@ 8( C0; 33' In re Mathew =., 334 Moo App 8I3@ 9** A'd 7:9 Caznovs!y vs. Caznovs!y, 8(.: A 'd 3I:( Armando Schmerbar vs. State of -alifornia 4*( KS 8:8 ;aul . Breithaupt vs. Morris Abram 4:' KS (4' -harles 0oseph Kastigar and Michael Eorean Stewart vs. Knited States 4' Ced 'd '3' &. vs. ;. 53*796 8: C) 37' arrison vs. arrison 53*(36 4 -urt 39@ 394 B= 94* ;ollard vs. +ybourn 53*'*6 3 ag Bcc 8':@ 39' B= 84'

+uotes from the Judgment 3. OIt is trite law that for the purpose of grant of a decree of divorce what it is necessary is that the petitioner must establish that unsoundness of mind of the respondent is incurable or his<her mental disorder is of such a !ind and to such an e%tent that he cannot be reasonably be e%pected to live with his<her spouse. Medical testimony for arriving at such finding although may to be imperative but undoubtedly would be of considerable assistance to the -ourtO. OA party may behave strangely or oddly inappropriate and progressive in deterioration in the level of wor! may lead to a conclusion that he or she suffers from an illness of slow developing over years. A few strong instances indicting a short temper and somewhat erratic behavior on the part of the spouse may not amount to his<her suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorderO. '. O)he indu Marriage Act or any other law governing the field does not contain any e%press provision empowering the -ourt to issue a direction upon a party to matrimonial case to compel him to submit himself to a medical e%amination. owever, in our opinion, this does not preclude a -ourt from passing such an orderO.

)inita Sa.ena vs. !an"a' !andit

Filed under: Section 14,1-,ia- and ,iii- of ind# &arria!e Act, 19.. Appellant: 5inita SaAena Respondent: /an*a9 /andit Citation: 114,+<<0- D:6 880 Court: In the i!h "o#rt of Delhi Judges: " K &aha9an
Vinita a/ena filed a case of divorce on grounds of mental disorder. 0t was dismissed. he filed this appeal challenging the judgement. Facts Jinita Sa%ena married ;an!a" ;andit as per indu rites and ceremonies. )he marriage was not consummated. She claimed that she was sub"ected to physical as well as mental cruelty by her husband and his mother. It was alleged that prior to the marriage, ;an!a" was suffering from mental disorder and was a case of ;aranoid Schizophrenia and ;sychopathic /isorder. owever, this fact was not disclosed to Jinita before the marriage. )herefore, she filed a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty and mental disorder. )he /istrict -ourt dismissed the case while re"ecting the plea of cruelty on technical grounds and on the basis of evidence given by the witnesses that proved that ;an!a" was not suffering from any mental disorder. Against this order, the present appeal was filed in the igh -ourt. Jinita challenged the order on the grounds that the /istrict 0udge failed to appreciate the medical record, deposition and medical description of her husbandNs disorder. Arguments made on behalf of Jinita@ 3. )he )rial -ourt had not appreciated her evidence on several issues that had proved her case. It was argued that she was treated with cruelty. And the fact that ;an!a" did not ob"ect to the allegations of him suffering from a mental disorder proved her case. '. )he )rial -ourt failed to appreciate the medical record, which proved that ;an!a" was suffering from a mental illness. 4. )he -ourt failed to appreciate evidence of the fact that she was denied matrimonial happiness because of her husbandNs incompetence, which constituted cruelty. ;an!a" opposed all the allegations made in the appeal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. bservations of the Court

)he main issue for consideration before the -ourt was whether ;an!a" was suffering from a mental disorder to such an e%tent that it could not be reasonably e%pected of Jinita to live with him2 In that regard, after carefully e%amining the evidence of the witnesses, the -ourt held that the )rial -ourt had rightly come to the conclusion that Jinita had failed to prove the issue and that ;an!a" was not suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. JinitaNs arguments that the )rial -ourt had failed to appreciate medical records1 deposition and medical description of the disease were held to be without substance. As to the $uestion whether Jinita was sub"ected to cruelty, the -ourt opined that the conduct charged as cruelty is to be of such a character to cause in JinitaNs mind a reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or in"urious to live with ;an!a". In this case, there was insufficient material on record and the evidence was insufficient to establish the cause of cruelty. )hus, the igh -ourt opined that the Additional /istrict 0udge had rightly observed that the incidents of cruelty narrated by Jinita were not so grave to come within the scope of cruelty and the appeal was dismissed. Sections Referred: Sections 345365ia6, 5iii6 of the indu Marriage Act, 37::

Cases Referred: King vs. King, 537:'6 ' All Bngland =eport 5AB=6 :*( arton vs. arton. 537(I6 4 AB= 4*I McBwan vs. McBwan, 379( 3I* Sol. 0o 37* -A Eollins vs. Eollins, 379( A- 9(( Smt Maya vs. Bri" ?ath, AI= 37*' /elhi '(I /astane vs. /astane, I 37*3 /M- '74 S-@ AI= 378: S- 3:4( Shobha =ani vs. Madhu!ar =eddi, I 37** /M- 3' S-@ AI= 37** S- 3'3 J Bhagat vs. Mrs. / Bhagat, AI= 377( S- 83I Sheldon vs. Sheldon, 537996 ' AB= ':8, ':7 =am ?arain Eupta vs. =ameshwari Eupta, II 537**6 /M- 49( S-@ AI= 37** S- ''9I

J. Sudha"ar Sheno% vs. )rinda Sheno%

Filed under: Section 14,1-,ia- and ,iii- of the ind# &arria!e Act Appellant: %$ S#dha*ar Sheno2

Respondent: &rs$ 5rinda Sheno2 and Another Citation: +<<1,+- Kar$:$ %$ 048,D)Court: In the i!h "o#rt of Karnata*a Judges: arinath 6ilhari and 6$1$ 5allina2a!am
This is an appeal against the order of the Principal Civil (udge and the Chief (udicial $agistrate% Bangalore dismissing the petition of udha&ar henoy for divorce on grounds of cruelty and mental disorder. Facts 0 Sudha!ar Shenoy and Jrinda Shenoy got married 34 years prior to the filing of the case as per the customs of the Eowda Saraswatha community. )hey had a son aged 33 years. Sudha!ar filed a petition for divorce in the court of the ;rincipal -ivil 0udge and the -hief 0udicial Magistrate, Bangalore, which was disissed. Sudha!ar filed an appeal in the igh court of Karnata!a that his wifeNs mental disorder was suppressed and a fraud was played upon him at the time of marriage. e elaborated that even on the wedding day, his bride,to,be after garlanding him, forcibly cut and removed her own bridal garland and threw it away. )hereafter, Sudha!ar learnt that his newly wedded wife had been undergoing treatment for mental disability. Bven prior to the marriage she was admitted to a hospital and she was treated by a psychiatrist. It was also said that she was $uarrelsome which made the entire family miserable. Sudha!ar informed the court that his wife even tried to commit suicide more than twice. She used to beat their son and did not treat him with love and affection. &inally he said that his wife was suffering from Schizophrenia and had strange habits ma!ing it impossible for him to live with her. e had some more complaints about his wife who he claimed did not even fulfill her marital obligation and had denied him se%ual intercourse for ten years and that he had been suffering on this account for the last ten years. e placed the blame on the mental illness and lamented that they could not live together. Jrinda Shenoy stated that she was of sound mind. She added that as was customary her health had been investigated before the marriage was solemnized. She further added that she continued to remain physically fit. She further claimed that the initiation of divorce proceedings after a fairly long marriage was a result of the instigation of her sister,in,law 5brother,in lawNs wife6. )hus, Jrinda resisted the dismissal of the divorce petition filed by her husband. )he "udge at the trial court stated that the case was being dismissed on the following grounds@ 3. /ue to failure of the husband to provide ade$uate proof of allegations. '. /ue to the acceptance of the fact that $uarreling or causing embarrassment were common factors in family life. 4. /ue to the illness, certain marital obligations may not have been fulfilled, which however did not amount to cruelty.

Arguments made on behalf of Sudha"ar Sheno%: 3. Jrinda was suffering from a mental disorder 5schizophrenia6 and that the lowest court had erred in holding that the disorder was curable which was contrary to the records. '. It was impossible for him to live with her as her disorder was not curable and his family life was ruined because of her abnormal behaviour. Arguments made on behalf of )rinda Sheno%: 3. .n the other hand, his wife contended that the attempt to get divorce was because Sudha!ar wished to marry again. '. )he situation was escalated by his brother and brotherNs wife. 4. )here was no proof of schizophrenia. bservations of the Court )he court pointed that the allegations about JrindaNs mental status and the supposed fraud at the time of marriage was illogical. It was observed that it was difficult to believe that Sudha!ar waited for 34 years to discover his wifeNs mental disorder. If the behavior of the bride was so intolerable then the further conduct of the marriage should have been a problem. )he fact was that the marriage was solemnized and subse$uently a boy was born within two years. )he so,called strange habits li!e drin!ing water mi%ed with turmeric powder, applying castor oil to hair and bathing twice a day etc, were not due to a mental disorder. )he -ourt also noted that another allegation was made that the wife attempted to commit suicide thrice, but there was no e%planation or reason offered for the same. &urthermore, though Sudha!ar had denied that he had filed the petition on the behest of his brotherNs wife, it appeared to be the root cause of the whole trouble. )he -ourt after e%amining the evidence provided by Jrinda regarding the marriage ceremony observed that such detailed and vivid narration of the marriage ceremony and her life thereafter revealed a woman of normal intellect, good behavior and conduct. &urther the evidence regarding her admission to the hospital clearly shows her behavior as that of an ordinary woman unaffected by any disease. )he -ourt opined that evidence so vividly given by Jrinda only indicated that the husbandNs allegation of a mental disorder in his wife is neither believable nor acceptable and hence the finding rendered by the )rial -ourt is to be upheld in the light of the evidence available. (eld )he -ourt held that there is no merit in the appeal and confirmed the decree given by the family court. )here were no costs. Sections Referred: Section 345365ia6 and 5iii6 of the indu Marriage Act, 37::

Cases Referred: Krishna Bhat vs. Srimathi, 5377:6 ' Kar. C 0 '83@ IC= 377: Kar 3(7( Enanambal vs. E= Selvara", 5378I6 ' Mad C0 ('7 )arlochan Singh vs. 0it Kaur, AI= 37*9 ; A 487 /arbara Singh vs. Sudarshan Kaur, 37*3 indu C= 3:8

+uotes from the Judgment: OIf any ordinary lady hears about such false news, certainly she will get mad. +hen the petition was dismissed by the )rial -ourt on 38,7,377( only, in 377' informing the wife that the divorce has been granted and custody of the child was given to the husband, certainly would upset any ordinary human being and especially a woman. ;robably these are the attempts made by the husband to spoil the wife and ma!e her mentally upset by giving such false news. )his only indicates the husbandNs an%iety to somehow get an order of divorce by hoo! and croo! by painting the wife with dar! picture and charging her with such false news. )hus it is seen that it is the husband who has been inflicting the cruelty on the wife ma!ing her unhappy at times and the plea of mental disorder or schizophrenia are not made out on facts and the evidence rendered by the court below has to be confirmed and the same is confirmedO.

Jo%"utt% Mathew vs. )alsamma Kuruvilla

Filed under: Sections 19 and 46 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, Sections 14, 14,1- and +0 of the ind# &arria!e Act, 19.. Appellant: %o2*#tt2 &athe' Respondent: 5alsamma K#r#villa Citation: &$?$A$1oHs 8.+ and 880 of 1988 Decided on 18$1<$1989 ,Unre;ortedCourt: Kerala i!h "o#rt Judges: /$"$ )ala*rishna &enon and D$%$ %a!annadha Ra9#
An appeal filed by (oy&utty $athew against the judgement of the trial court dismissing his petition for declaring his marriage with Valsamma 1uruvilla as null and void. Facts 0oy!utty filed a petition under Section 3* of the Indian /ivorce Act see!ing a declaration that his marriage with Jalsamma be declared null and void. )his petition was filed on the ground that Jalsamma was impotent and she was unwilling to have se%ual relations with him. According to him the only occasion on which they managed to have se% was when he sedated her. e also claimed that she was

suffering from schizophrenia and his consent to the marriage had been obtained by suppressing this fact. Jalsamma denied all these allegations. She denied having any mental illness and claimed that they had a normal married life with se%ual relations as and when they felt li!e it. )he couple had got married on 38.I:.37*'. Jalsamma conceived and delivered a female child on 38.I(.37*(. )he child died after living for two months and eight days. )he trial court dismissed 0oy!uttyNs petition finding the allegations made by him to be unsubstantiated. Against this "udgement of the trial court, 0oy!utty filed this appeal. bservations made b% the Court )he igh -ourt held that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations made by 0oy!utty. It held that the fact that Jalsamma became pregnant and delivered a child went to show that she was not impotent. )he igh -ourt held that the couple went on a pleasure trip indicating that they were leading a normal happy married life. )he igh -ourt observed that although there was some evidence to show that Jalsamma had consulted ;sychiatrists and ;sychologists on certain occasions, there was no evidence to show that she was suffering from any serious mental disorder. )here was ample evidence to show that she was a normal woman with good academic record. )he igh -ourt observed that 0oy!utty had invented the theory of lunacy only to secure a decree of nullity of marriage. )he igh -ourt also re"ected 0oy!uttyNs contention that his consent to the marriage had been obtained by fraud as this ground had not been ta!en by him before the trial court and had been alleged for the first time in his appeal before the igh -ourt. .n the $uestion of alimony the igh -ourt awarded alimony of =s :II per month !eeping in mind 0oy!uttyNs income 5about =s (III per month6 and JalsammaNs salary as a teacher 5=s *87 per month6 and also an amount of =s :,III towards court e%penses. (eld )he petition was dismissed for above reasons. Sections Referred: Sections 37 and 49 of the Indian /ivorce Act 3*97 Sections 34536 and '( of the indu Marriage Act 37::

Cases Referred:

 Abraham 0acob vs. Ksha K Mamman, 37*( Ker C0 :74, AI= 37*: ?.- '38 Ksha Abraham vs. Abraham 0acob, 537*86 ' Ker C) :*', AI= 379* Kerala 79 )arlochan Singh vs. 0it Kaur, AI= 37*9 ;un" and ar 487 =am ?arain vs. Smt =ameshwari, AI= 37** S- ''9I

circumstances are essential for divorce / 0igh 'out 5 Supreme court )udgments
All Charges to be substantiated B? ;anduranga Shet vs. S? Ji"ayla%mi ?irmala Manohar 0agesha vs. Manohar Shivram 0agesha Sudhir Singhal vs. ?eeta Singhal Sharda vs. /harampal Jinita Sa%ena vs ;an!a" ;andit 0. Sudha!ar Shenoy vs. Jrinda Shenoy 0oy!utty Mathew vs. Jalsamma Kuruvilla Al!a Sharma vs. Abhinesh -handra Sharma Eeorge 0oseph vs. Alphonsa alias Covely Mathew and another =am ?arain Eupta vs. Smt. =ameshwari Eupta Mu!esh Mathur vs. Smt. Jeena Mathur Mamata Mishra vs. Subhas -handra Mishra J- )homas vs. An )homas alias Kun"umol /evi Sharma vs. -hander Mohan Sharma ;rithvi ;al Singh vs. 0oginder Kaur Smriti!ana Bag vs. /ilip Kumar Bag =adhamony Amma vs. Eopinathan ;illai Manisha vs. ;ramod 0oginder Kaur vs. Sur"it Singh =e!ha vs. =avinder Kumar A"it ;aul vs. Bessy Baby

#- !anduranga Shet vs. S- )i'a%la.mi

Filed under: Section 14,1- ,iii- of ind# &arria!e Act, 19.. Appellant: )1 /and#ran!a Shet Respondent: S1 5i9a2alaAmi Citation: +<<4,4- Kar$:$% ,D)-

Court: In the i!h "o#rt of Karnata*a Judges: A& ?arroB and D5 Sh2lendra K#mar
This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Civil (udge at $ysore dismissing the petition for dissolution of marriage. Facts B? ;anduranga Shet and Ji"ayala!shmi were married in 3773 according to indu customs and rituals. In the petition, ;anduranga stated that after 3: days of marriage, Ji"ayala!shmiNs behaviour turned abnormal and violent. e also said that she was not interested in her matrimonial duties and ill,treated him and his family members. )he petition also started that Ji"ayala!shmi conceived after four months of marriage and in due course of time a daughter was born with Nmental abnormalitiesN. ;anduranga reported that her behaviour was abnormal during the course of the pregnancy and also after the birth of the child. )hereafter, Ji"ayala!shmi conceived for the second time and went to her parentsN home for the delivery. Meanwhile, the first daughter died. After the second child was born Ji"ayala!shmi returned to her husband in Mysore. &urther, on her re$uest, ;anduranga shifted to a separate house where her behaviour, as described turned from bad to worse. At about this time, ;anduranga consulted a psychiatrist in Mysore who opined that Ji"ayala!shmi was suffering from schizophrenia that would re$uire lifelong treatment. +hen $uestioned, Ji"ayala!mi denied that she had or was suffering from any mental disorder or that she had ill,treated her husband or the members of his family. She claimed that they shared a normal marital life evident from her conception and pregnancy history. She also denied the allegation that the first daughter had died as a result of her 5Ji"ayala!shmiNs6 mental disorder. She stated that there was nothing wrong with her behaviour that their families were closely related to each other, and that ;anduranga !new her before their marriage. She claimed that her husbandNs family was pre"udiced against her for not having borne a male child and that she was forcibly ta!en to a nursing during her third pregnancy for termination , an incident that caused great mental shoc! and anguish. )hereafter, ;anduranga too! her to her parentsN home and left her there and got a legal notice issued see!ing her consent for a divorce. After e%amining the evidence of husband and other witnesses, the )rial -ourt proclaimed that ;anduranga had failed to prove that his wife had treated him with

cruelty or to establish that she was suffering from a mental disorder. )he petition was thus dismissed. ;anduranga then went on to appeal to the igh -ourt. bservations of the Court )he -ourt informed of the necessity to establish that the mental disorder was of such an e%tent as to ma!e it impossible to live together, in order to avail of the benefit of this section of the act. )he court observed in this connection that though ;anduranga had stated that his wife was behaving abnormally after 3: days of marriage, he had ta!en her to the doctor only after ( years. )he -ourt held that under the circumstances it was difficult to believe that the Nabnormal behaviorN was of such intensity as to ma!e it impossible for them to live together. (eld: &or the above reason, the petition was dismissed Sections Referred: Section 34536 5iii6 of indu Marriage Act, 37::

Cases Referred: =am ?arain Eupta v. Smt. =ameshwari Eupta, AI= 37** S- ''9I @ 537**6( S-- '(8 @ All. C.0. (*4

-irmala Manohar Jagesha vs. Manohar Shivram Jagesha

Filed *nder: ind# &arria!e Act Sections 14,1- ,ia- and ,1- ,iiiAppellant: Smt$ 1irmala &anohar %a!esha Respondent: &anohar Shivram %a!esha Citation: AIR 1991 )7&)A@ +.9 Court: In the i!h "o#rt of )omba2 Judge: A5 Savant
Facts ?irmala and Manohar Shivram 0agesha had been married at ?asi! in accordance with the indu marriage rites. Manohar was a lawyer practicing at ?asi! while ?irmala was an Arts Eraduate from /elhi. After the wedding ?irmala had stayed with

Manohar for only (I days, after which ?irmala left her matrimonial home and went to live with /r. Badlani who was a common friend. After staying with him for : days she left for /elhi. About two months later, ?irmala went bac! to ?asi! with her father,in,law. /uring this time she stayed with her husband and his family only for a period of 3I days after which she left for /elhi. /uring her stay this time, her mother,in,law wrote a letter to ?irmalaNs brother Baldev, complaining that ?irmala could not perform any household wor!. )hree months later, ?irmalaNs father,in,law wrote another letter to Baldev, in which he mentioned ?irmalaNs indifferent and defiant mood and also the threats that she had given to her mother in,law. /espite these complaints, ?irmalaNs father,in,law e%pressed hope that ?irmala would come bac! to ?asi!. A few months later, her father,in,law wrote another letter to ?irmalaNs father complaining about ?irmalaNs peculiar behavior. e referred to this as indicating that she was mentally unbalanced. )he letter also stated some specific instances, such as getting up late at night and brushing her teeth, opening doors, sitting on the floor of the bedroom. e further added that neighbors or visitors had witnessed this behavior. At the end of this letter ?irmalaNs father,in,law contended that if ?irmala was not sent bac! to ?asi! within a period of 8 days, legal proceedings against her would be initiated. )herafter, Manohar wrote a letter directly to ?irmala re$uesting her to come bac!. e also referred to the abuses ?irmalaNs mother had hurled at him and his mother. e claimed that it was for this reason he would rather not come to /elhi to get her bac!. Manohar also sent a telegram to ?irmala stating that he was seriously ill and wanted her to come to ?asi! immediately. In response to this telegram, ?irmala went to ?asi! but after staying with Manohar for about 3I to 3: minutes she went to stay with /r. Badlani and then on the same day she returned to /elhi. .n the basis of the above facts, Manohar filed a petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty, desertion and mental disorder. In the petition, Manohar also stated that ?irmala was se%ually cold and unresponsive. e also claimed that ?irmalaNs mother had abused his mother and had also insisted that he and ?irmala should live separately from his parents. )he subse$uent proceedings under Section 3': of -riminal ;rocedure -ode by the /elhi -ourt granted maintenance of =s. :II<, per month to ?irmala. In reply to the charges made by Manohar, ?irmala filed a written reply in which she denied the allegations of erratic behavior and mental deficiency. She further contended that she was being harassed for the demand of dowry of =s. :III<,. She also denied that she did not !now coo!ing and that she was of subnormal intelligence.

&urther, she also denied allegations of her being se%ually unresponsive and claimed that it was Manohar who was unable to consummate the marriage. She also denied the alleged disputes and $uarrels. bservations of the Court )he -ourt proceeded to analyze the relevant points in order to come to his "udgment. e specifically dealt with the following issues@ 3. ad ?irmala in fact treated Manohar cruelly2 '. -ould it be proved that ?irmala was suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a !ind that Manohar could not reasonably be e%pected to live with her2 4. &inally, could Manohar be granted decree for divorce on grounds of cruelty of the allegations made by ?irmala about his impotency2 +ith regards to the first point, the -ourt referred to several previous and relevant cases and opined that on the basis of the evidence provided by Manohar it could not be concluded that ?irmala had treated him cruelly. &or the second point, the -ourt reviewed relevant sections and previous cases and concluded that ManoharNs contention of ?irmala suffering continuously or intermittently could not be accepted. &inally, for the last and the final point, the -ourt again made references to many relevant previous cases and opined that ?irmala had made wild, rec!less and baseless allegations in the written statement against Manohar. According to the -ourt, ?irmala had not attempted to either put her husband or herself under cross,e%amination. She had not tried to support the allegations she had made in written about her husbandNs impotence. .n the basis of this point the -ourt granted decree for divorce to Manohar on grounds of cruelty. )he appeal was therefore partly allowed. Sections Referred: Sections 34536 5ia6 and 34536 5iii6 of the indu Marriage Act, 37::

Cases Referred: =am ?arain vs. =ameshwari@ AI= 37** S- ''9I Eangadharan vs. ). K. )han!an@ AI= 37** Keraia '(( AI= 37*8 /elhi :' Asho! Sharma vs. Smt. Santosh Sharma@ AI= 37*8 /elhi 94 Smt. Shanti /evi vs. =aghav ;ra!ash@ AI= 37*9 =a"asthan 34 Smt. Krishna Sarbadhi!ary vs. Alo! =an"an Sarbhadhi!ary@ AI= 37*: -alcutta (43 Kamini Eupta vs. Mu!esh Kumar Eupta@ AI= 37*: /elhi ''3 /r. Keshaorao Krishna"i Condhe vs. Mrs. ?isha Condhe@ AI= 37*( Bombay (34 Smt. Savitri Balchandani vs. Mulchand Balchandani@ AI= 37*' Allahabad :'

Kiran Kapur vs. Surinder Kumar, 37*' =a"dhani C= 5?ote6 48 at ;. 49 Ca"wanti -handho! vs. .. ?. -handho!@ AI= 37*' ?.- 333 Sha!untala Kumari vs. .m ;ra!ash@ AI= 37*3 /elhi :4 Smt. Sumanbai vs. Anandrao@ AI= 3789 Bombay '3' /r. ? E /astane vs. Mrs. S. /astane@ AI= 378: S- 3:4( )rimba! ?arayan Bhagwat vs. Smt. Kumudini )rimba! Bhagwat@ AI= 3798 Bombay *I I$bal Kaur vs. ;ritam Singh@ AI= 3794 ;un"ab '(' Jilliams vs. Jilliams 537946 ' All B= 77(@ 537946 4 +C= '3: Eollins vs. Eollins 537946 ' All B= 799@ 379( A- 9((@ 537946 +C= 389 Kaslefs!y vs. Kaslefs!y 537:I6 ' All B= 47*@ 99 )C= 5;t '6 939 =ussell vs. =ussell 3*78 A- 47:@ 88 C) '(7@ 34 )C= :39 Sharda ?and Sharma v. Kiran Sharma, 537*:6 '* /elhi C) 5S?6 4' Eirdhari Cal vs. Santosh Kumari, 537*'6 3 /M- 3*I 0orden /ienadoh vs. S. S. -hopra, 537*'6 3 /M- ''(@ AI= 37*4 ?.- 434 Sadan Singh vs. =esham, AI= 37*' Allahabad :'

Sudhir Singhal vs. -eeta Singhal udhir inghal filed a petition see&ing dissolution of his marriage on grounds of cruelty and mental disorder. Facts Sudhir and ?eeta Singhal were married at /elhi according to indu rites and ceremonies. )hey were both divorcees at the time of the marriage. owever, neither had a child either from the present marriage or from their previous marriages. After the marriage, the couple lived in -handausi. After about 9 years, Sudhir filed a petition for divorce in the -ourt of -ivil 0udge, Moradabad, K;. e claimed that ?eeta was abusive, used filthy language and was insulting. )he case was then transferred to the -ourt at /elhi. ?eeta filed a written statement in which she contended that she had never behaved in the manner stated by her husband. She further too! the defense claiming that Sudhir was an alcoholic and because of this habit she had not been able to conceive. She further added that Sudhir had treated her in a very cruel manner right from the first night. In the Sessions -ourt two main issues were ta!en up@ 3. +hether ?eeta had been of an unsound mind of such a !ind that Sudhir could not reasonably e%pected to live with her2 '. +as ?eeta guilty of treating Sudhir with mental cruelty as claimed by him2

At the Sessions -ourt, both the parties presented oral and documentary evidence. It was claimed by Sudhir that ?eeta had hurled filthy abuses on him and his mother. It was further contended that ?eeta had decided to leave her matrimonial home with the intention of never coming bac!. In reference to this it was pointed out that she had collected all articles including "ewelry, bedding, clothes etc. A list was also submitted of these items. Apart from this, SudhirNs lawyer also submitted a certificate that had been issued to ?eeta by a psychiatrist. It had been claimed in the certificate that ?eeta had been suffering from .bsessive -ompulsive ?eurosis and was therefore mentally unsound. In response to these allegations, ?eeta contended that during the first 9 years of marriage, there had been no allegations against her for using foul language against Sudhir and his mother. Also during this period it had never been stated that ?eeta was suffering from a mental disorder. It was further pointed out that the list of the articles ta!en had in fact been thrust on ?eeta. )he lawyer also claimed that SudhirNs wea!ness for alcohol was at the root of all the problems. After analyzing the relevant evidence, the Sessions 0udge dismissed the petition. Sudhir was not satisfied with the "udgment and filed the present appeal. bservations of the Court )he -ourt made reference to relevant previous cases and Section 345365ia6 of the indu Marriage Act. After this, the -ourt proceeded to analyze the evidence on the $uestion of mental disorder and on the $uestion of cruelty. )he -ourt observed that Sudhir, in his petition had e%tended the evidence given by the doctor who had e%amined ?eeta. )he doctor stated that Sudhir had brought ?eeta to him for treatment. )he date mentioned by the doctor was later modified by him. .n diagnosing her, he had found her to be suffering from .bsessive -ompulsive ?eurosis. e also maintained that ?eeta had been suffering from this disorder previously as well and he had seen the prescriptions of the previous doctors. e also stated that his treatment had not shown much improvement in ?eetaNs condition. )he doctor had also submitted a photostat copy of the prescription slip. owever, when the doctor was cross,e%amined he said that he did not maintain any records of his patients e%cept that of entries in his appointment diary. After ta!ing into account this aspect of evidence, the -ourt pointed out that nothing was stated or proved by the doctor that indicated the nature and length of the treatment that the doctor had prescribed for ?eeta. Bven though the doctor had stated that he had seen the prescriptions given by previous doctors, no such prescription had been placed on record. &urthermore, the -ourt also e%amined the certificate that had been issued by the doctor. )he -ourt observed that the /octor had claimed that he did not maintain any records of his patients.

And yet, after two years he remembered ?eetaNs case and had issued a certificate. ?ot a single prescription had been put on the record and nor had the doctor stated the line of treatment prescribed by him. .n the basis of these aspects, the -ourt stated that evidence presented to the -ourt was not sufficient to support the case that ?eeta Singhal had indeed been suffering from a mental disorder of such a degree that Sudhir could not live with her. After e%amining the relevant evidence, the -ourt also stated that Sudhir had not been able to establish the claims of mental cruelty against ?eeta. )hus, the -ourt also re"ected the plea of mental cruelty made by Sudhir. Accordingly the -ourt held that Sudhir Singhal had failed to ma!e a ground for dissolution of his marriage. )herefore, the appeal was dismissed. Sections Referred: Section 34536 5ia6 of indu Marriage Act 5': of 377:6

Cases Referred: Eauri Shan!ar -ha!ravarty vs. Smt. Basana =oy, AI= 3777 Eauhati (* Anil Kumar vs. Sunita, 5377*6 3 /M- 4(:@ 537786 4 Eu" C= ''9( =a"ana Sa%ena vs. ;rabhash Sa%ena, 537786, 9* /C) 478@ 537786 ' /M- 438 Ksha Eupta vs. Santosh Kumar ;ahadiya, 537796 3 /M- 7I@ 3779 M;C0 (' =am ;ra!ash vs. Smt. Ji"ay Kumar, 5377:6 ' /M- 83@ 5377:6 ' Shim C- 4* 5 im ;ra6 J. Bhagat vs. 5Mrs.6 /. Bhagat, AI= 377( S- 83I@ 5377(6 3 S-- 448@ 377( AI= S-+ (: Smt. ?itu vs. Kishan Cal, AI= 377I /elhi 3 =am ?arain Eupta vs. Smt. =ameshwari Eupta, AI= 37*7 S- ''9I Sh. Asho! Sharma vs. Smt. Santosh Sharma, AI= 37*8 /elhi 94 Smt. Kamini Eupta vs. Mu!esh Kumar Eupta, AI= 37*: /elhi ''3 A.B.E. -arapiet vs. A.D. /erderian, AI= 3793 -al 4:7

ifference bet#een +ental 1llness and 1nsanity to be (oted / 0igh 'out of (e# elhi
Mohinder Kaur vs. S.S. Sabharwal

Filed under: Section 14 ,1- ,iii- of the ind# &arria!e Act, 19.. and R#le 18 of "ode of "ivil /roced#re Appellant: &ohinder Ka#r Respondent: S$S$ Sabhar'al

Citation: ?$A$7$ 1o$ 81 of 1989 Decided on 1+$11$89 Court: In the i!h "o#rt of Delhi Judge: @o!esh'ar Da2al
Facts Mohinder Kaur and S.S. Sabharwal were married with two male children. Both the sons however died. S.S. Sabharwal then filed this petition for divorce on the ground that his wife was suffering from mental illness, which included schizophrenia, and also on the ground that she had deserted him. In order to support his case, S.S. Sabharwal stated that his wife had been suffering from incurable insanity from the very start of their marriage. According to him, he had continued to provide her treatment with the hope that she might be cured. e also submitted the tic!ets of various hospitals, which they had visited for her treatment. It was also alleged that Mohinder could not be left alone in the house because she used to throw away the goods, cash, and "ewelry from the house. e also went on to state that Mohinder#s mental state was so bad that one could even suspect death at her hands. According to him, she might !ill while sleeping or administer poison without understanding the merits or demerits of her actions. It was also stated that she was $uite capable of leaving the house during a fit of insanity. owever, Mohinder Kaur in response denied all of the above allegations. She stated that it was her husband who was guilty of e%tending e%treme physical and mental cruelty towards her. She further alleged that her husband had started neglecting her immediately after the first year of marriage and that he constantly placed burdensome demands on her threatening that if she did not fulfill those demands she would be forced to leave the house. She also stated that she was !ept on insufficient diet even during her pregnancy. &urthermore, Mohinder claimed that their first child had died within '( hours of birth and her husband or his mother had not even bothered to visit her in the hospital or en$uire about her health. She also contended that when their second son, who was ( years old, had fallen ill, her husband had refused to pay for his medicines and diet. )he son had then suffered from paralysis and during this time, she had ta!en care of him all by herself. e had died at the age of *. +ith respect to the fact that she was of an unsound mind, Mohinder Kaur denied all the allegations and stated that she was matriculate and had also wor!ed on a part,time basis before her marriage. At the )rial -ourt, the husband had presented evidence of psychiatrists who had treated his wife. .ne doctor from AIIMS claimed that he had e%amined Mohinder Kaur and had diagnosed her as suffering from schizophrenia. In the cross, e%amination however, he had stated that he had only seen her twice but had made the diagnosis of schizophrenia on the basis of the symptoms. e had also brought the records wherein these symptoms were listed. In order to support the claims made by him, S.S. Sabharwal had also presented the evidence of neighbors and other doctors.

.n the other hand, Mohinder Kaur#s lawyer e%amined the evidence given by another doctor of AIIMS who stated that he had treated her some time bac! but he did not clearly remember her condition. e did not have any records with him. )he wife#s brother also stated that his sister was perfectly all right. /uring cross,e%amination, Mohinder admitted that her husband had never given her beatings, but she denied the fact that she had been treated at the +illington hospital by a private doctor as claimed by her husband. At the )rial -ourt, the 0udge considered two main issues1 whether Mohinder Kaur was insane2 +hether she had left the house of her husband, and if so, to what effect2 After e%amining the arguments put forth by both the parties, the )rial -ourt re"ected the plea of desertion but found that Mohinder Kaur was suffering from a mental illness, which was of an incurable nature and therefore granted the decree of divorce to S.S. Sabharwal. Mohinder Kaur then filed the present appeal against the order of the )rial -ourt. Arguments made on behalf of Mohinder Kaur )he lawyer on behalf of Mohinder Kaur contended that in the plea submitted by S.S. Sabharwal, it had been stated that his wife was suffering from incurable insanity, whereas the evidence provided by him showed that she was suffering from schizophrenia. )he lawyer also argued that the issue considered by the )rial -ourt was that whether Mohinder was insane but the finding had been that she was suffering from a mental illness. )herefore, the lawyer contended that the finding was contrary to the plea ta!en by S.S. Sabharwal. bservations of the Court )he -ourt stated that Section 34 536 5iii6 had been amended in the year 3789, but S.S. Sabharwal had filed the case prior to this amendment. )he -ourt then $uoted Section 34 536 5iii6 of the Act before it had been amended and e%plained that prior to its amendment, this section had not made any distinction between the mental illness and insanity. According to the -ourt, the )rial 0udge had given the "udgment according to the amendment whereas1 S.S. Sabharwal had framed the petition according to the Act prior to its .amendment In this situation, S.S. Sabharwal filed an appeal see!ing permission for amendment of the petition. )he -ourt allowed the application for amendment and permitted S.S. Sabharwal to file the amended petition. )he appeal was allowed to the e%tent that the "udgment and decree of the )rial -ourt was set aside and the case was remanded to the )rial -ourt for trial on the basis of the amended petition. )he case was accordingly remanded. Sections Referred: Section 34 536 5iii6, indu Marriage Act, 37::

egree of +ental 1llness / 0igh court and supreme court $udgements

$egree of Mental /llness 0sha &upta vs. Santosh Kumar !ahadi%a

Filed *nder: Section 14,1- ,iii- ind# &arria!e Act, 19.. Appellant: Usha (#;ta Respondent: Santosh K#mar /ahadi2a Citation: I ,1996- D&" 9< Court: In the i!h "o#rt of &adh2a /radesh Judges: 6$S$ Doabia
This is an appeal by 2sha )upta against the decree for divorce passed by the 'istrict (udge of )walior. -er husband antosh had filed a petition for divorce on the grounds that 2sha had been suffering from a mental disorder from the first day of marriage. Facts Ksha Eupta and Santosh Kumar got married according to indu customs and traditions. Ksha had passed the B.A. ;art I e%amination at the time of marriage.)hey 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 Ksha was suffering from mental disorder from the first day of marriage. )he /istrict 0udge, Ewalior, passed a /ecree for divorce. Against this decree Ksha filed this appeal. In his petition, Santosh had stated that Ksha had been suffering from a mental disorder, which was not curable. e further stated that KshaNs behavior had not been normal from the first day of marriage. It was alleged that once Ksha would start spea!ing she would go on spea!ing and during this period she would also start shrie!ing, 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 bac! to her parentNs house. .n account of her abnormal behavior she was ta!en for treatment to Ewalior and was treated at /r. KaleNs 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. Blectric shoc!s were also administered to her but instead of improving, her condition deteriorated after the shoc!s. It was also elaborated in the petition that Ksha would not stay in the house and would run towards the road. She would brea! her bangles and even remove her NsindoorN.

In the application it was also suggested that there was some improvement in her condition on account of the treatment and she was ta!en to her parentsN house. She came bac! to live with her husband but there was no improvement in her condition. She would either !eep $uiet for hours or would go on spea!ing even to herself. According to her husband, she would call him either NKaluaN or N0o!erN. Santosh reported many such incidents in his application. It was alleged that she had tried to "ump off the roof and once had even attempted to throw her son out of a window. Based on all this an apprehension was e%pressed that there was every possibility that she would either cause in"ury 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. Ksha denied all the allegations made against her by her husband. In her petition she stated that they had lived together in a cordial manner. )he fact that two children had been born out of the wedloc! 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 husbandNs house for the first time, a very unusual incident had ta!en place. Some gold ornaments that belonged to some women of her husbandNs family had been lost. As a result of this a search had been conducted and KshaNs luggage had also been searched. She was also accused by some members of her husbandNs family of stealing the ornaments. It was also suggested that she had brought bad luc! to the family. )his incident had upset her and she had suffered from shoc!. 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 e%ams after her marriage. &urthermore, it was contended by her that she had been loo!ing after her children and they were being given proper education. She also stated that there had been some improvement in her husbandNs 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 -ourt was ill founded and the -ourt had not appreciated the factual position. bservations of the Court )he -ourt e%amined several relevant cases and the evidence of the parties and witnesses. .ne of the doctors who had e%amined Ksha claimed that she had been suffering from NAcute Manic ;sychosisN at that time. owever, she also stated that she could not ma!e claims about her condition when the case was being heard. Another doctor, who claimed to have treated Ksha stated that her relatives had informed her that she used to spea! a lot and believed that she possessed a natural power bestowed on her by Cord anumana.

)he doctor however further added that she wasnNt sure if it was Ksha who she had e%amined. .ther doctors were also e%amined and one of them was not able to identify Ksha. After observing and analyzing the evidence and relevant sections, the -ourt stated that@ )here had been two children from the marriage, and Ksha was loo!ing after them to the best of her ability. It was further opined by the -ourt that the allegations made against her during the first day of her marriage could have possibly upset her. &urther 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 !nowing the nature and conse$uences of her actions. )he -ourt also held that an inability to handle oneNs 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 -ourt referred to her school reports and her e%amination results. &urthermore, the -ourt held that the contention made by Santosh that it wasnNt safe for him or his children to live with Ksha was clearly not borne out by facts. &inally, the -ourt concluded that Santosh had failed to establish the fact that his wife was suffering from a disease, which was incurable.

)he appeal was accordingly allowed and the "udgment given by the lower -ourt was reversed. Sections Referred: Section 34 536 5iii6, of indu Marriage Act, 37::

Cases Referred: 537:76 4 All B= 4*7 53797,36 All B= :47 AI= 374( All '84

Krishna #hat vs. Srimathi

Filed *nder: Section 14 ,i- ,iii- of the ind# &arria!e Act, 19.. Appellant: Krishna )hat Respondent: Srimathi Citation: 199. AI " 044<

Court: In the i!h "o#rt of Karnata*a Judges: / Krishna &oorth2 and 5/ &ohan K#mar
This is an appeal filed by 1rishna 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 37*I. According to Krishna, he did not !now Srimathi prior to their marriage1 a common relative had fi%ed 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. e further alleged that after marriage, they lived together for about ',4 days in his house and during that period Srimathi#s behavior was unusually calm and showed disclination towards cohabitation. e believed that this was because of changed atmosphere. )hereafter they went to visit their relatives and came bac!. According to Krishna, about a month after the wedding she suddenly began to display peculiar and aggressive behavior and began tal!ing incoherently. .n one or two occasions she even attempted to run away from the house and had to be brought bac! forcefully. e 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. e then too! her to Manipal and she was e%amined by a lady doctor. According to the doctor, Srimathi was mentally unsound and she could be !ept under control only by continuous administration of drugs. )he doctor also stated that Srimathi could not be completely cured. At this stage, Srimathi#s brother, =amachandra offered to ta!e her to his house and assured Krishna that she would be completely cured and sent bac! after treatment. owever, there was no response from them for some time and since he was an%ious to !now 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 e%pressed 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 e%amined 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 e%amining the evidence the )rial -ourt held that Krishna had not made out a case that his wife was incurably of unsound mind. )he )rial -ourt further held that Krishna had totally failed to establish that his wife was suffering from any of the

ailments alleged by him. .n these grounds the petition for divorce was dismissed. Krishna then filed this appeal. bservations of the Court )he -ourt e%amined the arguments e%tended 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 !ind that he could not be reasonably e%pected to live with her. )he -ourt then too! into consideration the testimony given by a doctor who had e%amined Srimathi. )he outpatient record of the hospital in Manipal stated that Srimathi was suffering from acute schizophrenia and the doctor had prescribed certain drugs for her. )he -ourt then referred to the literature available on schizophrenia. Based on these reasons the -ourt held that Krishna had established that Srimathi on the date of marriage had been suffering from a mental disorder of such !ind and to such an e%tent that he could not reasonably be e%pected to live with her. )he appeal was accordingly allowed and the -ourt held that their marriage would stand dissolved by a decree of divorce. Sections Referred: Section 34 5i6 5iii6 of the indu Marriage Act, 37::

Cases Referred: =am ?arain Eupta vs. Smt. =ameshwari Eupta, AI= 37** S- ''9I

Smt !ravati Mishra and Another vs. Jagadnanda Mishra and Another

Filed *nder: Section 14 ,i- ,iii- of the ind# &arria!e Act, 19.. Appellant: Smt$ /ravati &ishra and another Respondent: %a!adnanda &ishra and another Citation: 199. AI " 4040 Court: In the i!h "o#rt of 7rissa Judge: A /asa2at
Facts 0agadnanda married ;ravati according to indu rites. According to him, after their marriage, he discovered that ;ravati was suffering from a mental disorder of such a

!ind and to such an e%tent that he could not reasonably be e%pected 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. 0agadnanda further alleged that ;ravati#s father deliberately suppressed her mental condition from him. After marriage when ;ravati came to his house, she behaved li!e a child and called him >bhayia#. e further contended that she had no se%ual urges and sometimes went around the house star! na!ed. Because of such abnormal behavior, the marriage between them was not consummated. After two months of marriage, he filed a petition for dissolution marriage. ;ravati was also charged of being guilty of cruelty towards him. ;ravati and her father then filed a "oint application and denied all the allegations made by 0agadnanda. It was submitted that ;ravati 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 se%ual relation with her husband and had in fact had it with him on many occasions. It was alleged that 0agadnanda wanted to e%tract dowry to the e%tent of =s. 3 la!h 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 =s. :II per month to ;ravati since she had no source of income. )he Cower -ourt 0udge evaluated the evidence in the case and held that the marriage of 0agadnanda and ;ravati had not been consummated due to ;ravati#s mental disorder and therefore 0agadnanda was entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage. It was further held that 0agadnanda was liable to pay =s. 3'II<, per $uarter to ;ravati as maintenance. ;ravati then filed this appeal challenging the decree of dissolution of marriage passed by the Subordinate 0udge. 0agadnanda also $uestioned the correctness of the $uantum of maintenance as awarded on the ground that since he was unemployed the $uantum fi%ed by the 0udge was irrational. bservations of the Court )he -ourt referred to the various provisions of the indu Marriage Act and e%amined the arguments e%tended by both the parties. According to the -ourt in the ob"ections filed by ;ravati, it was specifically mentioned that her intelligence was subnormal. )he Subordinate 0udge had also referred to the evidence of various psychiatrists who had e%amined her. According to them, her IR was below :IM after the age of '3 years and her mental disorder was incurable. She was also e%amined in the -ourt and she was unable to answer the $uestion that by what number was 3': bigger than 33:. According to the -ourt, the Subordinate 0udge had rightly concluded that 0agadnanda was entitled to a decree of divorce.

)he -ourt then too! up the other aspect of the appeal, which dealt with the $uantum fi%ed for maintenance, which was to be paid by 0agadnanda to ;ravati. According to the -ourt, every able,bodied husband was obligated to maintain his wife. owever, no arithmetic rule could be adopted in fi%ing the amount of maintenance. )he -ourt held that it could find no scope for interference in the appeal filed by 0agadnanda. Both the appeals were accordingly dismissed. Sections Referred: Section 34 5i6 5iii6 of the indu Marriage Act, 37::

Cases Referred: +hyshall vs. +hyshall, 537:76 4 All B.=. 347

Smt. Rita Ro% vs. Sitesh Chandra #hadra Ro%

Filed *nder: Section 14 ,1- ,iii-, ind# &arria!e Act, 19.. Appellant: Smt$ Rita Ro2 Respondent: Sitesh "handra )hadra Ro2 Citation: AIR 198+ "alc#tta 148 Court: In the i!h "o#rt of "alc#tta Judges: )aner9ee and )$1$ &aitra
Facts Sitesh -handra married =ita =oy according to indu rites. )he marriage was consummated and after a year a daughter was born. Sitesh then filed a petition for divorce on the grounds that =ita was mentally abnormal to such an e%tent that he could not be e%pected to live with her. According to Sitesh, after marriage, =ita started displaying signs of abnormal behavior. She also attempted to commit suicide. Sitesh further contended that after observing her abnormal behavior he too! her to the Mental ospital for treatment. )hereafter she was also admitted in the hospital for some time. In order to support these contentions, several witnesses were also e%amined. .ne witness was a doctor who had allegedly e%amined =ita. e testified that =ita suffered from Schizophrenia. Det, in his prescriptions, there was no mention of the same.

=ita then filed a written statement in which she denied all of the above allegations. According to her, she had passed her higher secondary e%amination 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 $uite adversely. She had thus gone to the Mental ospital for treatment after which she had been declared fit )he /istrict 0udge had e%amined the case and had opined that =ita was suffering from a mental disorder that included Schizophrenia of such a !ind that Sitesh could not reasonably be e%pected to live with her. Accordingly the /istrict 0udge had passed the decree of divorce. =ita =oy then filed the present appeal against the said order. bservations of the Court )he -ourt e%amined the evidence e%tended by both the parties. )he -ourt also considered the fact that Sitesh or his mother had never made a mention of the fact that =ita#s behavior was of dangerous nature or that she became aggressive or abusive. )he lawyer on behalf of =ita had also pointed out that Sitesh had made a plea for divorce on the grounds that =ita was suffering from Schizophrenia but the evidence that he had put forth showed that she was suffering from mental aberration, not Schizophrenia. )he -ourt too! account of this and opined that on the basis of the evidence given, it could not be concluded that =ita had been suffering intermittently from a disorder of such an e%tent that Sitesh could not be e%pected to live with her. And therefore there was no sufficient ground to grant the decree of divorce. )he -ourt then made references to several previous cases that had been mentioned by =ita#s lawyer to support his case. .n the basis of the aforementioned arguments, the -ourt held that =ita had only been suffering intermittently from a slight mental disorder. Accordingly, the -ourt held that Sitesh should have been more tolerant of his wife#s condition instead of filing a suit for divorce seven years after marriage. )he -ourt concluded that the decisions arrived at by the Additional /istrict 0udge were erroneous and the appeal was thus allowed. Sections Referred: Section 34 536 5iii6, indu Marriage Act, 37::

R. ,a"shmi -ara%an v. Santhi

Filed *nder: Sections . ,ii-,a-,b- & 1+,1-,b- of the ind# &arria!e Act,19.. Appellant: R$:a*shmi 1ara2an Respondent: Santhi Citation: AIR +<<1 S" +11< Court: In the S#;reme "o#rt of India Judges: D$/$ &oha;atra & U$"$ )aner9ee
Facts =.Ca!shmi ?arayan and Santhi married according to indu rites and customs. )he marriage was arranged after Ca!shmi ?aryan met Santhi and spo!e to her. After the wedding, the couple stayed together for ': days and started staying separately thereafter. &ollowing this, Ca!shmi ?arayan 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. Ca!shmi ?arayan 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. e 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 Ca!shmi ?arayan was interested in marrying a second time so that he could procure more dowry. )he )rial -ourt held that Ca!shmi ?arayan had failed to establish that Santhi was suffering from any mental disorder or that there had not been any se%ual relationship, and that Santhi was not fit to lead a married life .n these grounds petition was dismissed. Ca!shmi ?arayan filed an appeal against the order of the )rial -ourt. )he Appellate -ourt held that the )rial -ourt had failed to loo! into the medical evidence produced before the -ourt. )he Appellate -ourt therefore reversed the order of the )rial -ourt. Aggrieved by the said order, Santhi filed an appeal in the igh -ourt. )he igh -ourt reversed the order of the Appellate -ourt and restored the order of the )rial -ourt. )hereafter, Ca!shmi ?arayan filed the present appeal. bservations of the Court After analyzing the relevant provisions under the indu Marriage Act, the -ourt held that a petition for annulment on the ground of mental disorder must depend on a $uestion of degree of the defect in order to rebut the validity of the marriage.

)he 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 -ourt proceeded to e%amine whether Ca!shmi ?arayan 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 Ca!shmi ?arayan that Santhi was incapable of giving valid consent for marriage in conse$uence of unsoundness of mind. &rom the facts found by the Appellate -ourt that allowed Ca!shmi ?arayan#s petition it could not be held that Santhi had been suffering from mental disorder of such a !ind or e%tent as to be unfit for marriage and procreation of children. &urther, 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 !ind or such an e%tent that it was impossible for her to lead a normal married life. It was also observed that mere giving a finding by the Appellate -ourt 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. &or the above reasons, this -ourt held that the igh -ourt could not be faulted for dismissing the petition of Ca!shmi ?arayan. Accordingly, the -ourt did not interfere with the order of the igh -ourt and dismissed the petition. Sections Referred: Section : 5ii65a65b6 A 3'536 5b6 of the indu Marriage Act,37::

egree of +ental 1llness/ )udgments of 0igh 'ourt and Supreme court

$egree of Mental /llness A"itrai Shivprasad Mehta vs. Bai Jasumati Bani /evi vs. A.K. Baner"ee Ksha Eupta vs. Santosh Kumar ;ahadiya Krishna Bhat vs. Srimathi Smt ;ravati Mishra and Another vs. 0agadnanda Mishra and Another Smt. =ita =oy vs. Sitesh -handra Bhadra =oy =. Ca!shmi ?arayan vs. Santhi

A'itrai Shivprasad Mehta vs. #ai )asumati

Filed under: Sections .,ii-, 1<,1-,e-, 11, 1+, 14,1-,iii- of the ind# &arria!e Act, 19.., Section 0. of the =vidence Act, 188+ Appellant: A9itrai Shiv;rasad &ehta Respondent: )ai 5as#mati Citation: AIR 1969 (#9arat 08 ,5 .6 " 1<Court: In the i!h "o#rt of (#9arat Judge: %$)$ &ehta
This is an appeal filed by Ajitrai hivprasad $ehta against the order of the Trial Court dismissing his petition for annulment of his marriage. -e had filed the petition on the grounds that his wife was 3mentally unstable3 and was unable to lead a normal married life. Facts A"itrai Shivprasad Mehta, a person with hearing and speech impairment married Jasumati Bai according to indu rites. e stated that he had relied on the representations made by his wifeNs father to his father. After the marriage Jasumati came to live with A"itrai who discovered that her Omental condition was defectiveO and that she was unable to lead a normal married life. e claimed that he was unaware of this prior to the marriage and that his wifeNs mental condition was incurable. )herefore he claimed that he was entitled to annulment of his marriage or to a divorce. Jasumati however denied these claims and stated that the marriage was not based "ust on her fatherNs representations as there had been opportunities prior to their marriage when A"itrai had met her and tal!ed to her. JasumatiNs case was that she is not Nmentally defectiveN and that this was a ploy on her husband and her in,lawNs 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 A"itrai could remarry. Arguments made on behalf of A'itrai It was argued that , )he e%pression Nunsoundness of mindN 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 Jasumati as well who was mentally defective and the defect was congenital. Jasumati 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.

bservations of the Court

)he -ourt observed that Jasumati did not suffer from such mental infirmity that would ma!e her an NidiotN or a NlunaticN. )he -ourt responded to the certificate of Nincurably unsound mindN given by the psychiatrist on which A"itraiNs lawyer relied heavily on. )he -ourt $uestioned the validity on several grounds. &irst, the doctor admitted that he had met Jasumati only once and that too without any clinical e%amination. &urther, the doctor had declared that Jasumati was a Nlow,grade moronN pronouncing that she would not be able to carry out the usual household duties1 he however admitted that it was difficult to reach a conclusion about the degree of mental deficiency without a clinical e%amination, which ta!es the past history into account. )he doctor also admitted that without this there is a li!elihood of arriving at an incorrect diagnosis. &inally, when $uestioned by the -ourt, the doctor stated that he would not call a person who he thin!s is a Nlow grade moronN as an idiot. e also added that Jasumati did not $ualify either as an idiot or as a lunatic.

)he -ourt observed that though Jasumati was slow in understanding complicated $uestions, she was able to give relevant answers to simple $uestions and stood the test of a searching cross,e%amination. Merely because she had a wea! memory of the roads and places or names of relatives, she was not of Nunsound mindN. )he evidence made it clear that Jasumati 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. )herefore, the Omental defectO was not of such a degree or e%tent that made her incapable of managing herself or her affairs. )his also indicated that she was not a person of Nunsound mindN. )he "udge also observed that when the argument of Nunsoundness of mindN is used as a ground for divorce, it is essential that this diagnosis be proved beyond reasonable doubt to satisfy the court. And since A"itrai had not been able to do this, he dismissed the case. )he )rial -ourt held that A"itrai had failed to establish that Jasumati was of Nunsound mindN at the time of marriage or that her mental condition was incurable. e 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. (eld:)he appeal is dismissed with costs. Sections Referred: Sections :, 3I536, 33, 3'536, 34536 of the indu Marriage Act, 37:: Section (: of the Indian Bvidence Act, 3*8'

Cases Referred: +hysall vs. +hysall, 37:7 ,4 All B= 4*7, 379I ; :' )itli vs. Alfred =obert 0ones, IC= :9 All ('*, AI= 374( All '84

;ancha vs. Bmperor, AI= 374' All '44, 44 -ri C0 83( arrod vs. arrod, 53*:(6 3 K A " (, ' += 93' /aniel Mc?aghtenNs case, 53*(46 3I -l. A & 'II, * B= 83*

+uotes from the Judgment: OA person whose mental defect does not reach the state of insanity !nown 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 Nunsoundness of mindN. &eeble, minded persons or persons of dull intellect in whose cases mental infirmity are not serious enough to ma!e them incapable of !nowing the nature and conse$uences of marriage cannot be considered as person of Ounsound mindO in the legal sense.O

#ani $evi vs. A.K. #aner'ee

Filed *nder:: Section 14,1-,iii- of ind# &arria!e Act, 19.. Appellant: Smt )ani Devi Respondent: A$K$ )aner9ee Citation: AIR 198+ D=: I .9 Court: In the i!h "o#rt of Delhi Judge: 5$D$ &isra
This is an appeal by Bani 'evi against the decree for divorce that was passed on the grounds that she was of unsound mind. Facts Bani /evi and A.K. Baner"ee had an arranged marriage. According to Baner"ee, on the first night of marriage at about mid,night, Bani had shouted and yelled. er face had become distorted and her eyeballs had gone in different directions. er body was cramping and she was foaming from her mouth. owever she regained consciousness after some time. )he following morning BaniNs brother and a doctor were sent for. er brother informed Baner"ee that such attac!s were transitory and that Bani had medicines with her, which would be helpful. er brother also gave a brief history to the doctor. )he doctor informed Baner"ee that Bani was suffering from epilepsy and advised him that she should be put in a hospital.

Baner"ee also stated that Bani had suffered these stro!es for a duration ranging from 3: minutes to (: minutes. Sometimes their fre$uency would be two a day and once she even suffered as many as 3' stro!es in * hours. Baner"ee filed a case for divorce and was granted the decree on grounds of BaniNs unsoundness of mind. She then filed the present appeal against the decree for divorce. BaniNs brother was called as a witness and he admitted that Baner"ee had called him to his house on the day following the marriage. owever he described his sisterNs illness as a little bit of headache. Bani contended that she had suffered from some fits because of her fatherNs death but she also claimed that she had recovered from them. She denied that she had suffered from any such fits in her husbandNs house on the first day of her marriage. She further stated that she only had headache and also denied that she had been ta!ing medicines. She also admitted that she had been ta!en to the doctor the day after the marriage and had also been admitted in Shadhara ospital. owever, according to her she had not suffered from any fits during her stay in the hospital. bservations of the Court )he -ourt made reference to several relevant acts and analyzed the relevant evidence. .n this basis the -ourt reached the conclusion that even though the evidence presented by both the parties was bound to be pre"udiced, 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 ta!en her to a doctor. It was also evident to the -ourt that Bani was in the habit of ta!ing medicines to overcome such fits. )he medical evidence consisted of various doctors who had e%amined Bani at some point. .ne 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. e however, was not able to say whether this disease could be cured or not. Another doctor, who was wor!ing 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 e%tent but they could not be completely cured. Bani was discharged after a period of about 4 months on the grounds that Owhatever was possible to be done had been doneO. At the time of discharge her epileptic fits had been controlled to some e%tent. )he doctor also stated that her disorder was congenital. )he doctor had discharged her a few days before she finally left, but since nobody came to ta!e her, she stayed in the hospital for a few more days. e further claimed that Bani was still having epileptic fits and fits of violence. e was not cross,e%amined regarding the sic!ness or its nature.

Baner"ee also produced the Medical Superintendent and Senior ;sychiatrist of the Shadhara ospital. .n the basis of the records he stated that Bani suffered from epileptic fits with episodic attac!s of violence. e further mentioned that if regular treatment was given then these fits could be reduced in severity and fre$uency. +hen cross,e%amined he stated that he had been observing Bani during his wee!ly rounds. e further stated that he had recommended discharging her because she had shown improvement and could be managed at home. e further stated that BaniNs intelligence $uotient was found to be 9: and she therefore had to be put in the category of a NmoronN. e also stated that the patient was not unsound but during her fits of violence she was of unsound mind. &inally he added that her IR at this stage could not be improved. )he -ourt observed that both the doctors were unanimous in the belief that Bani was prone to having fits and during these fits she would be violent towards others and herself. er discharge from the hospital had been on the criteria that whatever could be done for her had been done and improvement had been observed in the severity and fre$uency of her symptoms. After e%amining other similar medical evidence, the -ourt concluded that Bani was a person of unsound mind since she was not capable of managing herself or her affairs. )he -ourt also opined that BaniNs unsoundness of mind was incurable and she had been in this state since her marriage. )he appeal was thereby dismissed. Sections Referred: Section 345365iii6 of indu Marriage Act, 37::

Cases Referred: 5379(6 379(,4 All B= '4' S 5379(6 4 +C= 74:, =obinson vs. =obinson 537936 3793,4 All B= 33I: S 537936 3 +C= 3(*3, -hapman vs. -hapman 537:76 37:7,4 All B= 4*7 S 37:7,4 +C= :7', +hysall vs. +hysall