Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shashi Kant Kaushal vs Beena Kaushal on 22 March, 2011
Author: K.Kannan
Bench: K.Kannan
FAO No.224-M of 1998 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.224-M of 1998
DATE OF DECISION: March 22, 2011
SHASHI KANT KAUSHAL ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
BEENA KAUSHAL ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN.
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgement? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes
----
PRESENT: MR.A.S.KALRA, ADVOCATE AND
MR. RAMESH SHARMA, ADVOCATE
FOR THE APPELLANT.
NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT.
K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL)
1. The appeal is against the order dismissing the petition for divorce on the ground that the wife was suffering from mental illness and that she was also guilty of cruelty. The facts as disclosed in the petition were that through the marriage the couple had been blessed with two daughters, namely, Puja who was 6 years of age and Pragya who was 4 years of age at the time when the petition was presented in the year 1990. It was contended by the petitioner that the respondent has suffered from Paranoid Schizophrenia and had been taking treatment from the Department of Psychiatry in PGI, Chandigarh and that had not been disclosed to him before marriage that she was suffering from such mental disorder and was taking treatment. It is also alleged in the petition that the respondent did not like to live with the petitioner in the company of his parents and at her FAO No.224-M of 1998 -2- insistence, he left his father and unmarried sister at Mohali and shifted to a rented house in Sector 16, Panchkula. The respondent was working as a Teacher in Paragon Public School, Mohali. The grouse of the petitioner was that she had been keeping her earnings to herself and she never allowed the petitioner to spend any money out of her earnings for household expenses. The suggestion was, therefore, the respondent had been guilty of cruelty on that account also. As a further instance of cruelty, the husband would urge that she denied sexual access to him.
2. The wife denied that she was suffering from any mental illness. She would contend that the petitioner himself had deliberately instigated the co-tenant Bhupinder Singh Saini and his wife to assault and misbehave with her to create evidence against her. She would contend that the petitioner had instigated one Chaman Lal and his associates and through them threats had been issued to her that she would be forcibly thrown out of the residential house. She denied that the petitioner had shifted to a rented house at her insistence. She further stated that the father-in-law was an Army pensioner and he had his own house. He had also married his daughter. The petitioner chose to take a rental accommodation only to claim appropriate allowances from his employer.
3. At the time of trial, the elder daughter was 12 years of age and the younger one was 10 years of age. She was a person working as Teacher and had given birth to children and was bringing them up. It is doubtful how this imputation of insanity could be justified for the grant of divorce. The insanity complained of as a ground of marriage must be of an incurable type. Although it was denied by the respondent that she was suffering from any mental illness, even Schizophrenia cannot stated to be an incurable FAO No.224-M of 1998 -3- type. It has been so laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Naraia Gupta vs. Rameshwari Gupta (1988) 4 SCC 247. The petitioner cannot contend that this was a mental illness of such type that it could be stated that she could not be cured. A Doctor had been examined, but he did not go as far as to say that such type of mental illness cannot be cured at all. If she had an ailment and if it was not disclosed, the non- disclosure could have been made a ground if it served as a material basis for taking his decision for marriage and if he had filed the petition within 1 year for annulment of marriage under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petition filed nearly 10 years of their marriage and when they had grown up children would only show that the petitioner was trying to pick up some excuse for dissolution of marriage. I am not prepared to go as far as the trial Court did by saying that no mental ailment of the respondent was proved. I would say that if she had a mental ailment, it was not proved to be of such type that was incurable to offer to the husband a ground for divorce .
4. All the instances of cruelty which had been provided to the wife had been properly explained by the wife. I do not find any of the instances had been clearly established. On the other hand, it was the evidence by the wife that she had been subjected to harassment and the petitioner had been making attempts to eject her from the house on some pretext or the other.
5. The trial Court at the time when it considered the allegation of mental illness for the wife, made reference to the fact that in the suggestion made to the husband in the cross-examination when it was stated that her illness was on account of maltreatment of the husband. The Court, FAO No.224-M of 1998 -4- therefore, observed that it must proceed to examine the evidence of the Doctor to find out the order and degree of the alleged Paranoid Schizophrenia. The Doctor had said he was not in a position to say whether it was incurable or not. He only stated that the patient could recover to a stage where a person could manage one's own personal affairs well. He admitted that she was well aware of the surroundings. There was no inappropriate behaviour though she could have auditory and visual hallucinations. The report had noted some delusions, but also stated that none of those symptoms existed for her at the time when he examined her. It was recorded 18.7.1989 that she had come with her husband and that she was better and had no hallucinations. In the light of the specific evidence which had been brought out, the trial Court found that after all she had been working as a Teacher and no complaints had come about her in the school. There was nothing, therefore, for the Court to suspect that she had any present problems that could afford to the husband a ground to discard her on the basis that she was incurably of unsound mind. The trial Court has properly considered every instance dealing with the alleged attributes of cruel conduct and observed that the petitioner had not proved all his allegations nor brought any independent evidence to show that she was guilty of cruel conduct. I find no reason, therefore, to differ with the view taken by the trial Court.
6. I affirm the decision of the trial Court and dismiss the appeal.
March 22, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE