Kerala High Court
Dr.Caroline Mareena Henry vs Dr.Mathew K. George on 25 September, 2018
Author: A.M.Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, P.Somarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 3RD ASWINA, 1940
Mat.Appeal.No. 418 of 2009 (F)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 917/2007 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE,
DATED 16-12-2008
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
DR.CAROLINE MAREENA HENRY,
D/O.RAMOLA HENRY, RESIDING AT "SHALOM",
39/2956, R.C.ROAD, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
SRI.P.M.PADMANABHAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
DR.MATHEW K. GEORGE, S/o K.C. GEORGE,
RESIDING AT KANDATHINKARA,
KUMBANAD.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU PAUL
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.09.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat. Appeal No.418 of 2009 2
JUDGMENT
A.M.Shaffique, J.
This appeal has been filed by the respondent in O.P.No.917/2007 challenging the judgment dated 16.12.2008 of the Family Court, Kozhikode. The respondent herein filed the original petition seeking for divorce under Sections 27(1) (d) & (e) of the Special Marriage Act (for short 'the Act').
2. The parties got married on 07.01.2005 and a child was born in the wedlock on 25.12.2005. The contention urged by the petitioner/respondent herein is that she was having a sought of a mental disorder, as a result of which she was not in a position to continue the marital life.
3. The respondent denied the aforesaid allegation. According to her, she suffered depression on account of her divorce of the first marriage and thereafter she was taking medicines for depression and she does not have any sought of mental disorder, as alleged, warranting divorce.
4. Before the Family Court, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and the Doctor who treated the respondent was examined as PW2 and the appellant was examined as RW1.
5. Based on the evidence made available, especially the medical evidence adduced by the Doctor, PW2, the Family Court came to the Mat. Appeal No.418 of 2009 3 conclusion that it is a fit case in which divorce can be granted under Section 27(1)(e) of the Act.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence of PW2 clearly indicates that she does not have any mental disorder of such a kind by which a divorce can be granted. Her only complaint was on account of depression and if the medicines are taken continuously she may not have any problem at all.
7. Section 27(1) (e) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, reads as under:
"27. Divorce [(1)] Subject to the provisions of this Act and to the rules made thereunder, a petition for divorce may be presented to the district court either by the husband or the wife on the ground that the respondent -
....................
(e) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent."
8. The evidence of the Doctor apparently indicates that she was referred by a Professor of NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore, in the year 2000 with the complaint that she was having a psychiatric illness. Thereafter she was under the constant consultation with PW2 and she was under medication. On a perusal of the evidence of PW2 would clearly indicate that she was under treatment for mental disorder for quite a long time. The learned counsel submits that when medicines are Mat. Appeal No.418 of 2009 4 taken, she does not have any problem. If we look at the statutory provision, especially explanation given to Clause (e), the expressions "mental disorder" as well as "psychopathic disorder" had been explained. Psychopathic disorder is a form of mental disorder and in respect of psychopathic disorder the divorce can be granted even if the said disorder is susceptible to medical treatment or not. On a consideration of the entire evidence of PW2, we are of the view that sufficient grounds had been made out for divorce under Clause (e) of Section 27(1) of the Act. Despite the earnest argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the Family Court. No grounds are made out for interference.
Mat. appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE DMR/-