Ravikumar S/O Shankar Deshpande vs Hema Deshpande @ Lakshmi Deshpande on 11 September, 2009

[Cites 6, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Ravikumar S/O Shankar Deshpande vs Hema Deshpande @ Lakshmi Deshpande on 11 September, 2009

Bench: K.L.Manjunath, S.N.Satyanarayana

IN THE HIGH CGURT OF RAMATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11*" DAY 0? sEPmnesae,gggg

PRESENT

THE HONBLE MR.JUS"i'I(3E K.L.MANJUNA'_1%§" ' ; [   

AND

THE HONBLE MR.JUS'I'iCE s.N.:sATyA.;&A'RA{YANA'~V  

MISCELLANEOUS FII~"~.'S'I' A.»_E'_EEAL VI%i«f}.'8062;f'i2»i"}{,§__4_;_V  3

BETWEEN :

1. RAVIKUMAR   f  ~
S/O SHANKAR DESHPANDE  
AGED 34 YRS,    j' 
VIJAYA AUTQ:'3ALEs' PVE' «win-_';--__

IN 1?:.DP'DTE:I%A:2'1'é§viEN*I*'V " _
B11,5u<AHALL:';. 33.  % R'0A13.. _ -
BANGALGRE 76  .. 

"  '  APPELLANT

(By Sm HE1§1ALATAVrg1A;:{iSai'I, ADV)

    .....

'H.F:,M.A'D:Es H?AN9E {By Sri SATISH M DODDAMANI, ADV}

-@ LAKSHM1-13E$HPAr¢DE " . W/0 D'RAVI KUMAR :%(}EIZ)' 29..'>r1=zs 01:) 'M KRISHNA MURTHY = A RETE1. "'I'Ai~=ISILE)AR, ' mo SHANKAR COLGNY % - .;NE;AR 301»: ROM WAMY ASHRAM, ANANTHASAYAAANAGUDE, F HQSPEP, BELLA!"-ZY RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED 1513 }.9(1) OF FC ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE £37'. 27.9.04 PASSED IN ""'\ M.C.NO.69/O3 ON THE FILE OF 'THE JUDGE, FAMYLY COURT, DAVANAGERE, IMSMISSING THE PETITION BY THE APPELLANT HEREIN U,/S 13(1)(iJ'J) OF...._HENDi} 3 MARRIAGE ACT SEEKING A DEGREE OF DIVORCE-r._ X ' THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN H:;ARa Ania RESERVEQ FOR JUDGMENT on , THIS BAY-~SA1'7YANARA yzqgma J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

.:UI)G:»4E1§"i>.. M This is petit§0ner's '§'5rp'pca ~_ I the judgment and decree dated 239: 'on the ﬁle of the Family Co:.z.r.t§'--.at was ﬁled by the hug1;am;.'eee~J,%;<;:»:f¢é;ao:#...wV;3{1)(m) of the Hindu Marriage Act vi the marriage between the petitioner eeﬁdﬁéent (wife).

In-eV.tl3.§g3 the sake of convenience the "gfefexred to by their ranking in the trial " facts kading to this appeal are that the and respcndent are Hindus. Their marriage was T on 13.5.2001. 11; was an arranged marriage. The "}5aI1:ies do not have any issues in the wed~»iock. According to the petitioner he is Iesident of Ko Harihar Taluk. After the marriage the manimoaial house was set up 'W1

- 3 _ in his native village Komaranahalii, the petiﬁoner and zrésponcient stayed there for four days. During the days the respondent was spending most of her time A' she always used to be drowsy. She was not Z b person in her in-laws house i11cl11<ii1-jig _ was not wearing cloths pmper1y._ 'V ceremony was arranged, on that""d:e'y night' feeﬁoddent started shouting loudly the room, as such there was' J3; of marriage between them 01:: 1,» "oi: :16.5.2()O1 the respondeﬁt bath, she was there for a lonégtime, mother ﬂied to knock the door she notieeiivv of the bathroom was not "_.V¥.3olted,.«§;ﬁ'on: inside; the: Iespondent was sitting in the wearing any cioths. It is cmiy then he the respondent with one Prabhavathi, V dd who i$""~thev-..i*e1aﬁ:'ve of respondent and came to know that she H H " 'izéjon Vteedieaﬁttien under the advice of one Nandakka. It is his that on 13.5.2001 there was 'Handara Pooja' in "r.he2l:ti house, which was zequired to be performed by the VA ﬁewly married coupie, the respondent refused to perform pooga along with petitioner and thereby forcing him to perform pooja alone. On 20.5.2003. there was W -4- 'Satyanamyana pooja' in the house wherein the_.vpe£i{ie:1er and respondent were supposed to perform instance of the mspondem it wasmp<}stpo11'ed*24»;5';20€}"1;'x on that day also she did not petitioner. 011 24.5.2001 peﬁ'£ipner £ur;ii respseficieigng 1 their manimoniai house. nespondent's parents came to meet: in On that day the respondent and started looking at was a strange me It is also be case that in his in his family the ladies who "dune do not enter the pooja room. Oﬁ" ~1;hat.;1ay '.-s_fheti the xespondenfs mother came to '~ she esfezreé 'poeja mom akong with her mother even ' .v£he1;gh4:sheve.'¢:6'as under the menstrual cycle. It was seen that .;g:se'€;i'§o1V1e1:~V'§§rV9:isVV not aware what she was rising and he also nouﬁeecsivssstihast during her stay with him the respondent was ntai;king some tablets at regular intervals. On 2?.S.2{}O1 the took the respondent to Bangalore where he was V' 'ezorlcing at that time, the journey was taken by a private bus namely Haxmman Travels. It is his case that in the has she took some tablets at 3.00 am., in the morning, as such she was not abie to get down ﬁom the has even after the bus """\ , 5 , reached Bangalore in the morning and the petitioner with great diﬁculty 3:13.91 to alight her ﬂora the bus and took hciix; his Scooter in his house, even while she was ~ scouts: she was in total drowsiness and after = -- house aiso she was sleeping for the W316ie"day."..AIt that the respondent never showed 'hr; "

happy married life and she nq sexual mlatéionship with --~..:_3.'he. 'v'V'a:=_.a1:;o not intemsted in doing any Week aftsr the petitioner and "tfsc peﬁtioner closely Gbsersfsd u jééspondent which accerdingﬂﬁo I on close observation he noticed namely Trachior (100 mg), Pegmeg It is his case that can enquiry 'that she is taking those tablets as per ftﬁeg ifloctor from Bellaxy. On. conning to imové the pctitionttr comactw the parents of the " 1j£:s;nondei1tV__Aé§11d enqtxémd about the same, he was informed «._1jj:;V'j13Z1'3i,$'l5:".--that they will came to Bangalore and personally talk V. On 3.6.2901 the rsspondenfs mother came to __4'4Ba11ga1ore, izsmediately took the respoxzeisnt to Hospet:

stating that the fathsr of the respondent is not feeling Wei}. It is only after that the goetitrioner am! his parents enquired "H

- 5 -

with their ﬁamily Doctor about the tablets, the respondent was taking. On such cnquixy, they came to know' that KIIOS6 tablets; weuld be prescribed to the patients who are suﬁeriﬁg from mental disorder or a disease called ~ 3 his cast: that he: enquimd with the pamnts of the ' u about the earlier treament taken by héfaizci to send the mcdica}. records of the so "

he could get her foI1oW--up gt case that the rcspondcnt'$'n-6t~LAscn<'i ofiithose éocuments. On further Lcamc to know that the responclgftrsgi' was 'Dr.Ka1-ur at Dharwad iyhg on cvexy Satuntlay and $116 was from one Ajay Kumar at Hospe-t.' that both the Boctom ware giving $}:;e.1jespo1ﬁ§ént for the chsaa' 3:: of Schzzo' phrcnia. disease of the zespondent has machcd suchAa;..__stag¢~ t::I;i:}::1fT it cannot be curtid and she has developed " inaﬁpxﬁipriam and strange behaviour, she is incapable herself ainé her affairs including the problems of % ﬁfe. She is am incapable to fulﬁl the marita} fﬁbligations incluciing having sexual intemoursse with her husband. The nature of her disease has caused permanent mental disoxder to her and the same is incurable. It is his "*1 pg .. 7 -

speciﬁc case that the respondent and her parents suppressed all these facts and performed the marriage ofﬁae respondent. Infect the petitioner and his the respondent to bring the entire medical mcordef H they could seek 'better medical a€l§;i{§'¢':»~.;n413ag:g.'_' whether the respondent could be of However, the respondent after did not send the medical reeozdssaszurl tne"petitio§r1er in involving him in her ucaee that he is hailing from a place, he did not wish and all his attempts is any possibility ':0 get the reapondentll was futile. In the meanw};li1e,e..theV:es}§oIl1de1l1t who went to her parents house also did not come back.

slle a legal notice calling upon the petitioxtzer to mg and her and to lead the marital life for which " AA peﬁﬁaaer gave a suitable zeply. Thereaﬂter, the felt that the respondent is incapable of clischaxghg . marital obligation, no purpose would be served in ﬁonenuing the relationship with her. Accoztiingly, he ﬁled this petition seeking decree for divorcze on the ground that the petitioner is suffering from an incurable mental discmlez"

"V2 .. 3 ..

and therefore, she is incapable of leading normal marital ﬁfe with the petitioner.

4. in the said proceeéings, the respondent ., appearance, ﬁled detailed objections. The stazejinenti V' it objections ﬁled by the respondent is trnjcreof totai admits the date of marriage and the :5:

to her mat:-imonia} houee and the of sire stayed there and the day on Wh:ichx:"she" to along with petitioner to stay xiéates and events am more or less atrimitted uiilowever, she denies the about her behaviour for the --~~'mant'}age ie., she did not cooperate_ 'V for consummation of the it oi}: the '(:fr:upti.a3, she was behaving strangely h01i'se'toi't§:§e..petih'oner, she sat in bathroorn for long i it the door and without wearing cloths on her, slie.. to join. the petitioner for performing Pooja and refused to join the petitioner in the Satyanarayema Pooja, as false. She also '"=.r;i1eﬁies the averxnent that when she was in her mensﬁixai cycle she went to pooja mcam with her mother. It is her case that with the ﬁermission of the gmtitioner 3116. his parents '""\ , 9 ..

her parents took her to the house of her relative at Maiebennur on the night of 26.5.2001 and on the next day at about 8.00 21:11., on 27.5.2091 she was brought and lef_t.._1_i£) p£tiﬁOI1€I"S house by her parents and on the same day noon both the petiﬁcner and respondent and the;i1i~-- * went to Harihar and from there petitienex came to Bangalore. She also denies§:.&the'tétvezi.*1ent" 7C petitioner that when she was atiﬁrelltng 5 % Harihar to Bangaiore she eonsume_§.{"'.ez_ble_ts at she was drowsy, when she 'eheb could not get down ﬁom the bus,..whiievAtz:=:$'e£iin§gAAen to the house from bnsistasﬁltt dmwsy, on that day she was sieeping fo§*'t,he She also states that she had gifts.-at _ tleaé. normal happy marne' d Iife Viﬁcxndﬁig iha.vin.g sexiiéltttfelationship with her husband anti eIt?.,ei::g1ii1g hold work. It is her case that the peﬁﬁoeer 33} this etoxziee after seeing certain

-. "meé.ici1}.eS,VI__ilke Trachior which was kept by her in her box. to her, she was not taking each medicines ..._' jit:eg1vi;,1.arly, ehe was keeping them with her as s¥an{i~»by V medicine to be taken as and when there is high tension and stress due to anxiety. is: is aiso her case that she was not taking the medicine regularly either in the house of "'""\ ..§90 yetitioner or at Bangakore. She deniee the allegation of the petitioner that he enquired with her parents about medicines over telephone and that her paxexzts ass1;1.'.e<i:i»3§;i;5;i;~ " V. thae they WEI} come to Bangalore and explain ' H aiso denied that the petitiogrler requesieé the earlier treatment ﬁven to her and 'f<;r meei¢§1' "

zecolds to get her better ﬂ*eatmeﬁ1tv.e t refused to send all those rec.9vrds,',as' ~ is' iie1~ea:s'e that in one of their visits the themselves mentioned to the respondent was in BSC I due to her failure 'ae"e_':'ee__s'olt ehe was treated by the Doctors Bate Dr; ,:DJ1ﬁ'.Ajay Kumar. According to her, the; aHegat:ie1a-e_ft§11e eeeﬁeioner that she is suffering ﬁom herxeehaviour is odd, strange and is incapable of zeanag3n' g herself and her the pmbieras of maritai life an: all false, ~ irxeepeneibh eontenﬁons Without the support «._.;§i' opinion. Aeee-rdEng to her, the disease H is not an incurable disease as contendea by petitioner, it is the behaviour of the petitioner is strange, odd and inappropriate. She stated that the petitioner does not lmew how to talk and haw to behave with an educated W .. 11 ..

wife iesiding in the City. It is her case that petitioner has not come and met her atieast once fmm 2000 to the dateh-_f ﬁling of the petition, after she came to her paxents ~ V. refused to even come and visit her, which siraxige * ' behaviour on his part. She denies: "'t1:1e« against her that she is ineapaliie of obligations towards the peﬁﬁonei~.«v.:S}ie __ 'siiie is incapable of having ané that she is suﬁeriilg disorder. It is denied by heriiiati__ iliier manciage with petitioiieg Infact she asserts she was living with the petitioner ﬁfe including the sexua}. me an;:;shc..was augmgng to all the work in the house like a ¥.nie»'rm;_iI 'is her speciﬁc case that her parents have not from the petitioner before the marriage. i it is since the peﬁtioner refused to take her to " the xmat:ni.'. :1 cinia' 1 house even after her stay in her paxents i ieng time she was forced to issue legal notice and mentioning diseaxti and disharmony against him. It is V3-iier case that even now she is ready and wiliing to lead. normal happy married life with the petitioner. In her objections she stated that she is the only daughter of her W

- 12 _ parents, she is given vex}? gmd wucation, she has passed SSLC antd PUC in I class. In the 1" year of her BSO she for the ﬁrst time, she took it serinusly, she was u11d.e1' .. stress, strain and tension duI'.m' g that per1od' , she V' to a Doctor by her parents who .her'_"

medicines. It is her case that she and this revived the stress, tensieh' 1'wfhﬁ_::h'wv&s there earlier and she " ehgutii that, thereafter she continued more time ané with the help Qf she passed her she is xzxormal and healthy, taking up pmfessional course of h' immediately after her g1~aduat§1oi1,_ho\xarez?er'd'i1e hie cimumstances she could ﬂnbt she has completed a course in chem-huieer B.Ed., secured appointment as Teachef school and has been Working in the said

--. teaéhifig mathematics and science for the students of '«.8"'~':i'_' to_ i'§£)*»**, she is discharging her duties to the satisfaction V' the school authcsrihles, she is leading a nominal life. ..,__4'4:!§.V<:<:<3I'<:l:inMg in her, for the reaeons beet known. to the petiﬁoner he has deserted and refused to cohabit with her, inspite of her best eﬁbrts to join the petitioner he is not "'"1 vf _ 13 -

responding to the same. 01;. these groumis sho submits that there is no merit in the case ﬁled by her husband and tho same is rcquireé to be dismissed.

5. Based on the pleadings the Court bciow * foiiowing issues.

1) Whether the potiﬁoner proves that. if is suﬁcring from mcx1t:aTVi_' V ' V _

2) Whether tho petritioncr ffospondent is suﬂhring d isorder?

3) Whether the respondent :"::i1"ié not in a position to '1:=,au'ti {with the petitioner?

4) _ Is under Section 23 for of fhevafoxosaid rciief?

' _ the respondent is entitled to permanent . Scciion 25?

é'a}..'iii&v':§r,;.x2{t' Vamon11t? V n 6).' vvwhat order?

After ﬁamzhg the aforesaid issues the petitioner ' evidence on his behalf as PW.1 and also got three oiimesses examined on his behalf as P"'Ws.2 to 4 and he produced and marked 3 documents at Exs.P1 to P3. 011 W1

- 14 -

behalf of the xespondent she examined herself as RW. 1 and examined four witnesses i.e., RWs.2 to 5 and marked 17 documents i.e.,Exs.R1 to R17.

7. The Court belcw after recording the . looking into the documems that are ﬁJ1ed__ by :;he' in u support of their case answered issues N=;>s,.1 a:1d'A.4"'i:n"' the :;_' aﬁnnative, issue No.2 partly negatiiie, VA the negative, in so far as issue Nosfi 58. a.:'eT¢enci}:n1ed, gave an opinion that the relief come Within. the purview of the said tiieV.'ﬁ1Sg;1--Vb1der as per issue the petition filed by the pe1it:io n¢z¥' undm? of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking eE'isso1ufi<)1i'~.of«...{he marriage dated 13.5.2001 " §etiti§'.5ne:r..._and respondent. The respondent the judment and decree of the Court V belevshss this appeal challenging the same 911 the ?C+110Wm' 'kg 4' s~ V '4 H " 's3,.'TlV'.{e judgent and decree passed by the Ccmxt hekxw is to law, pmcedure and evidence on record, the T below has failed to apply the relevant provision of {aw D? the facts on hand and Consequenﬂy arrived at a wrcmg ﬁnding, the Court below has faiieci to appreciate the 'W E

- 15 -

admission on the part of the respondent that she was suﬁeﬁng from schizophrenia and was contixiuously under treatment for the period ﬁom 1993 i.e., she was taking the medicines as prescribed by the Doctors who treated her after her marriage, the Court below also not appreeiéiteetfttieei tlact that he has proved at} the ingredients of it i' of the Ttiindu Marriage Act by cogent' anti as such he was entitled to get the decree for

9. It is urged that the Wnot considering the fact tbat'~..the heaith "of the respondent has caused impotency to the petitioiaer, 'he"ieiV'ineapable of eonsummating the mania" ge, has also failed" to appreciate the coiigiuot on.' the to: the respondent which not only pum of Section 13(1)(iii) but also under ﬁeetiotri cruelty to the petitioner, besides it also fails A1Loder.~See$:ion I2(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act arid " marriage as voidable. Aeeorcziing to him this fétet'ie_ appreciated by the ttnlai Court While Weighing the V. "----e\{ioence on record before passing the judgment and decree this error on the part of the Court below has caused severe damage to the ease of the petitioner. Accordmg to the petitioner the trial Court ought to have considered the case "H

- 15 -

under Section 12(1)(c) of the I-iineiu Marriage Act as his consent to the C was obtained by fraud and ehy suppressing the material fact and cixcumstances the respondent i.e., the fact that her suﬁexiiig V A "

sch;rzo' phzenia and being under txeatmem far since 1993. It is his case that hadzbhe 7-1:

mental condition. prior to his 'he have agneed for the said trial Court has failed to appr¢¢i,r§53e. avoid mama' ge under Section 5(a),_{bV)' 'er the Hindu Marriage Act. eeﬁ Vé:f§jifeciaﬁon of the facts and vto the conclusion that the respon d;3_1_:1t is incurable mental iﬂness, with tl:1§;=t--. 'Vof ﬂlﬁese 61; the respondent it cannot be petitioner to live with her. The the same has come to the wrong conc1"u_eion 'ﬁle mentai illness of the respondent is

-. _euseepﬁb'1e fo medicai treatment and the same is not gmund divorce, the trial Court ought to have seen that petitio:ner has proved the seriously irresponsible conduct the part of the respondent as mquired under the provisions of Section 13(iii){b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court beiow should not have erre-neousiy ciiawn an adverse "I .. 17 ..

inference against the petitioner on the grcmnd that he did not apply for medical examination of respondent. It is his case that since the respondent herself having mental illness and trcattnent: there was no need l ' seek for such an examination and the (3911:: to appmciate the abnormal and ix1csp§:=.:1si1§le 7C respondent after the mamagfel__v"'}1gspilev~ Viol' . suﬁicicnt: material in that; that after 3.6.2601 the responeh:-ll: did not take any initiative for ﬁzrther _ lelépendent, that the marriage the ground of nan co~op_eraﬁeii the Court below has e11'oneousl}?'91:tM * petitioner by dismissing his evidsmce all "According to the petitioner the Jemn1:'l§eioww.ai39 haelﬁaﬂifzel to appreciate the entire case in lguxd has tried to look at it in piece meal ' resulted in misc' amag' e of jusﬁce. it is also his caesc that the evidence of Doctor PW.3 to the eﬁcc: respondent could lead marital life with proper .___"tlt9eai;1nent is without any basis and that it is only theoretical 'expression when the evidence is otherwise and the Court below has 11:)': appr€:<:iated the same. It is also his case that the Court below Without looking into the over all facts and ""2 ~13- circumstances of the case, Without appreciating the evidence has come to a Wrong oonciusion that it is petitioner who is at fault, it has come to a wrong conclusion that _ Section 23(I)(a) he is not em-med to the relief he . Thenefoie in this appeal he has SOI1g}Zl.';[,fQI:f u judgment and decree dated Court Davanagere in Mc.69/203'34...gnd m"g~:an:@§'¢ég;rggVVf<§%r VA divoncre dissolving his mama' ge wit1:"aq¢ mspdedégt.

10. In this pmceedn;g§%«--thee'_'A may served, she entered appearance 1 1. iEjIeaItiA em parties.

12. of the Counsel for the _pa:"t:ie$",. the pleadings, evidence and Court below the paints that arise fer"':fhis appeal are as u3:1der:-

;i«} x§;1:.$§::;¢r the cmm below was justified in holding a the peiﬁiieaer/husband; has failw to prove that the respendeni;/Wife is euﬂering from schizophrenia which has made it impossibie for the peﬁﬁener to live normal mantied life with the respondent? R41 * re%.'isoI£~.~§;A

- 19 ..

2) Whether the Court below is justiﬂed in homing that the petitioxxer has faiied to prove theeiact of mental disorder of the respondent and the peblﬁoner cannot be to live with respondent?"

3) Whether the appellant -.

decree for divorce the' Iespondenf?

4) What order? ii

13. On Va}.jp1ecia::ﬁioni oi th_e=fa<:_ts evidence, also on goingivIhm1i:gL:'111eV_ e:;ti1'e:i*eeo1'd'e. of the Court below and after hean'ngi'it_1e partéee holds issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative .issue N.o.3v:in the aﬁrmative for the foliowing

14.' the case of the wtitiorzer that marriage betx=vee1i'i~11imself and respondent is arranged and conducted {fie elders of both families, prior to marriage at no point; i1,?"espondent's parents disclosed the mental illness suﬁemd by the respondent either to petitioner or his parents, they did not menﬁon yrior to marriage petitioner was under medical izeahnent for a long time and even as on the date of é W} -29- marriage she was under ﬁeahnent for the disease of schjzophzenia. The respondent and her parents éeliberately, intentionaiiy suppressed these facts from him as was unaware of the mental health condition l V' respondent, he was made to be}ievev.t~hat ' she; healthy, mentally sound to lead noxnial :5:

been made known to him about l prior to the marriage he would ﬁQ.':Cﬂi2;;vne»'V wed- lock with the mspondentt

15. in the evidence of {items reiterated the aﬁdavit. The gist of that is b1}.t..of petition averments to the extent that the ;e.a:1ﬁtVagAe--._bbe'tbtveen hiesxself and xespondent 'V A 13.AAS;2{}{}«1V, on the same day he took the Vliesgrleiicienté:"t<;$ﬂti;e..matrimoniial house in his village at behaviour of the respondent on 1§.5.2(lG1 2'l';.5.200} (in various dates in the matximenia} when she was in Harihar in her reiative's stated in the form of evidence. ln his evidence be t that he noticed abnormal behaviour of his wife during the ﬁrst few days of marriage, also observed that she is taking tablets namely, Traﬁchior (100 mg), Pemex and "E

-21..

Powexzox, which aeooxﬁing to his family Doctors is g"iVCI},7'..fQl"

the persons having schizophrenia problem, on ~ 2 know of the same he enquired with the M respondent, they did not give any co1:li?i§i1ei;3_g jéeplyl did not proéuce the entire records treatxnent. In the cross exami1la3:lo'n»he filing the petition for divorce he to the respondent and thetfael' léﬁlpxodueed any documents to is suffering from incurable that While he visited the before ﬁnalising the weddiog VllE7;»;1f.. able to make out that ehe has mental' 'peoblem, lihe tinge of conducting the "oe1ebratioe he vnwas not able to make out any V"V_differeiiee.'"' However, in the eross~exam:z3' atiozl, he states that marriage in the ﬁxst one Week he 2 noticeti lavas not tallstixag to anybody during her visit " f,o"'?§1e metelmonial house after Wedding, she used to sit in "oﬁe plaee, never used to talk to anybody, never "used to move she was not talking to the petiﬁoner aleo unless she ﬁves ialked to by him. It is the evidence of the petiﬁoner that he presumed that since it was stage of marriage she might be feeling diiﬁeult to mix with new persons "W -33- comfortably. It is also his case that on the ﬁrst night Vs-h_e suddenly became violent, on subsequent day his noticed that she was naked in the both room WitbC!#t t V' the door from inside, she did not which was celebrated durm' g the 7.:

16. In the evidence of'Pj;L2's'.....2 Whoa is_VVt1;e'etéi;ent.. er Komaranahalli and who is, 'also of;.:tEiixe:§;§et;it!:ioner, he states that there was between the parents of bothtixe some of the villagers Where, u the petitioner's parents he ezieeut the treatment that was givenxtho the 4' the said panchayath an attempt ﬂeas Vie the mental heaith of the 'V Vrespoitieienfg 'vﬂﬂqlliiﬂ about the whole records ireatxnent that was given to her, inspite of by peﬁtionefs yamnts the respondent's tpaxentst to part with any of the documents. _ V PW.3 is the matemai uncle of the petziﬁoner. His .___"'evi:i§3nce is to the eﬁect that he had seen the respondent at "t11e time of engagement, she was not acﬁve at that téme, nearly after 2 and V2 months sf wedding petit:ioner's mother informed the saici witness about the respondent going to her ""1 ..g3- metheﬁs place and staying there Without coming back. it is his evidence that he Went and enquired with theévperenis of the respondent about the health condition that was given to her by her parents, «metgherh infonned him that the respondeizfi is:_-nqfv eetfve' :'ﬂ;1VeV:.;:)2ist "

eight years due te depressiem. she"

is not taken the depressic)I;i:-.'.7_':i»v1i get it is his eviéence that he the request of respendentfe m0t11e;",_ "I:t_ inspite of his request to give the the 'ﬁeeement that was taken by the xespendent " ge.

'V ".18. igeﬁfaoner has aiso examined Dzzﬁarur as » skates that fmm 1986 to 2000 June he was ~. as~[.:;Pe§rehiatI'ist in Bellary under District Heaith and 'Welfare Scheme. It is his evidence that between 1993 AA 7;'?'¢.C2{}O1 he has examined the respemient and given "ﬁeatxnent to her. He also idenﬁﬁes Ex.R.3 the certiﬁcate 1 regarding the health condition of the respondent, he clearly admits that the respondent is suﬁerisng fI'OI}3 Paranoid Sehizophxenia, which is a kzind of mental disorder. Aeeexwding ti) him, it may get cured. However, he has not "*1 H24, pmduceel the entire records to Show the kind of treatment that he has given to her by giving reason thatzsuch documents are kept in Hospital and he has same with him. In the (:mss~examinai:ion he kind of disease that the Iespondeﬁt"ia« tieﬁnet 9 one which is likely to be cured, "he: .. %'1j:c.t_ menﬁoned so in Ex.R3, he alsqtelearlyvhaiiiuits"ﬁ_nVV12ié'evi§ience' that the said kind ofvmenta1'V.d'isgetdef-»eanei11y..he:§contro1Ied by medication but cantiot_.be"e13i1'e:ri of saying that he says that the 5:' normal married ﬁfe. In his evidence and eays possibility of the said problem being am that it is iikely to mvive again if meg: iziiedicatide = epntla, the respondent given evidence as RW. 1. its" the Vcxiﬁstséexaminaﬁon she admits that neither she nor her fuembers have informed the petiﬁexzer or his parents her menta} problem and the disease that she was V';suﬁ°e;r'i_t1g prior to the marriage. She admits that when she was living with the peﬁtsioner at no point of time she took those medicines in his presence. She stated that the marriage between herseif 3.13% the petitioner was """X é»-25-« consummated and they were having norma}. married life incluéizlg sexual acﬁvity, that she was a b1i1lj.a1xtV--st11dent during her education days, she is a graduate, B.F.d degree, completed a course in computer"-seience Working as a High School teac}gef,"'WhateveJe nemelogica} problem that she eee11'ei"

the medieaﬁon by Dr.Ajays»K:1gimar does' V not have the entire xeeexds vtxfeaenent that was given to her prior 'Slick, she is not in a position to p;ed__uce case' that even when the living sepaxately she was the petitioner over telephone and sheesyeas to go and stay with hixn, she is eapable <5: :e.oema1 married life, she woulé like to go ., 1§'e::_ and live normal married ﬁfe. of her evidence, she has also examined Rw.'.2V 'ixiho is her maternal uncle, who has gven evidence A f_" seen: the panchayath which has taken place between the V' family members of the petitioner and respondent in which he also participated. However nothing much elicited ﬁnm him to support the ease of the respendent. 'ea '2 -25- 2}. RW.3 is the aunt of the respondent and is another uncle and RW5 is another maternal these witness have given evidence about t§1eA"ina1fi:i¥lzai.ge« panchayath, which has taken place .bet\vee1§" . the petitioner and respondent ~pa' It teipeﬁonﬂg ti1.1;at. However, the evidence of these.' witnesses cioesV.i110iVVVs7€1ppo1ftt' the ease of the respondent.

22. On appzeeiatﬁon it is seen that the of has taken place respondent is suﬁering ﬂout the petitioner and his paxevntettwhtile xtearriage between them. Even at the of it was not diSC}{I)St'-id. The petitioner to "about this only after the marriage was V' Vfeettveen himself and the respondent. the nature of respondenfs health condition. is nothing on Iecorti to disbelieve that the " I eoonsummaﬁon of the marriage has not taken glance between the petiﬁoner and reepondent.

23. Infact the trial Court has not looked into the pleadings and the evidence, it has not promrly appreciated the same before mming ice the conclusinn that the 'W

-27..

respondent is not suﬁ'en'ng from incurabie decease of schizophxexzia, the acceptance on the part of 'that she was under treatraiaent for more than 9 marrza' ge and also being under coﬁstapot 'es " » the averments made by petii:ié)--z1eI1 " uz:. behaviour of respondent matriznoniai_houseV Hkeepixxge herself aloof and sﬁeot, not person in the matrimonial 31ouVs%3.,xV:A'I1<)t«.ﬁ consummate the marriage, the .respoodeot::V.be§g1§ ﬁonstant spell of drowsiness" all activities. The court below xxiote of the conduct of resposdene flying to suppress the health oonditioize ' her medical history, new coopexaiion ii;-. the medical record clearly discloses ' gieﬁtioner is victim of circumstance in being duped A _ without loaowing her mental heaith comiition-t

24. The trial Court has failed to take into account the admission of Dr.Ka;noor who treated the respondent, wherein he admits that the respondent is suﬁezting from paranoid schizophrenia, that she has been miszier ﬁeatxnent from him and Dnhjay. The opinion of the said doctor is that the W

-23..

decease of the respondent is incurable, at best can be controileci by medication dearly supports the caserof the petitioner. However, the tria} Court has same While giving a ﬁnding that the suffering ﬁom incurable fozm trial Court after proper appieciaﬁon of t1iese"mateI§tsivton record ought to have allowed tleexee of V divorce.

25. In vthe' ﬁe?-g1jn7gs;.:;§;:1d evicience, it is clear that§.ti:e fs;u1t_ of his is put to untold misefy anti by the respondent and her parents; uyytho the mental problem of the Iespoildentéuatmigot her tnarried to him and deprived him of " - 1:oima:l'uixss;iz7ted ﬁfe.

A 21$,' light of the aforesaid discussion the points Ne.'?:~.e"jigiV2 ﬂamed in this appeal ale answexjed in the A C txegeﬁve and point No.3 for eonsklemﬁon is answered it} the efﬁtexnative, the judgment ané. decree dated 27.9.2004 in V M MC.No.69/ 2603 on the ﬁle of Family Court, Davanagere is set aside, consequentiy the marriage between the appellant 5":

-29-

and respondent herein soiemniseai on 13.5.2001 is hamby dissolved. The parties to bear their own costs. Nei/~

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Ravikumar S/O Shankar Deshpande vs Hema Deshpande @ Lakshmi Deshpande on 11 September, 2009

Bench: K.L.Manjunath, S.N.Satyanarayana