Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In light of the principles laid down by the various courts including the Supreme Court, let me examine the case of the appellant. The appellant sought divorce on the ground of respondent's mental disorder and cruelty that she was given beatings; on 4.7.1 993 she was blamed for the respondent's illness and was beaten mercilessly by respondent on the instigation of her mother-in-law and she was not having . any physical relationship with the respondent because of his incompetency as he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. These allegations were denied by the respondent. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
(1) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty?
(2) Whether the respondent is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia disorder or any other mental dis-order to such an extent that it is not reasonably expected to live with him. If so, its effect?
(3) Relief.

The appellant examined herself as PW-1, her father Mr. J.S. Arora, PW-2, Dr. D.S. Arora, PW-3 and Dr. Kuldip Kumar, PW-4. In order to prove issue No.2, the appellant in her deposition stated that respondent was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and was incompetent to perform sex, therefore, the marriage was not consummated. She came to know about the mental disorder of the respondent after marriage. However, in her cross-examination she stated that she and respondent were class mates during the period from 1987 to 1990. During that period she did not find any abnormality in the behavior of the respondent. Further the appellant failed to examined the doctors, who treated the respondent. There was contradiction between the statement of appellant and Dr. D.S. Arora as to whether the respondent was admitted in Ashlok Hospital due to consumption of baygon spray or as a schizophrenic case. After carefully examination of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, the Additional District Judge rightly came to the conclusion that appellant had failed to prove this issue. Accordingly, he concluded that respondent was no suffering from paranoid schizophrenia disorder at all. The submissions of the appellant that the Additional District Judge failed to appreciate the the medical record, deposition and medical description of respondent's disease, which proves that respond nt was suffering from mental disorder are without substance. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Narain Gupta Vs. Rameshwari Gupta, held that mere branding of spouse as schizophrenic is not sufficient. Degree of mental disorder o the spouse must be proved to be such that petitioning spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with other. The testimonies of the doctors examined by the appellant to prove the respondent was suffering from schizophrenia cannot be looked into as t e respondent was not under their treatment and they were unable to explain the degree of mental disorder of the respondent. In order to prove issue No.1, the appellant stated that she was beaten by the respondent on several occasions. However, details have not been given. Only one instance has been disclosed. On 4th July, 1993 appellant was blamed for the respondent's illne ss and was beaten mercilessly by the respondent on the direction of her mother in law. Another incident of cruelty as narrated by the appellant was that the appellant was not having any physical relationship with the respondent as the respondent was a atient of schizophrenia and was incompetent to have physical relationship. In her cross-examination, she stated that she did not lodge any complaint with the police authorities regarding the beatings as alleged. She failed to give exact date, month and ear when she was given beatings. She further stated that she was beaten off and on. She informed her father about mental disorder of the respondent after three months of her marriage. However, the father, PW-2, in his testimony stated that petitioner pprised him of mental disorder of respondent after 5-6 days of the marriage. The alleged beating of the appellant by the respondent on 4th July, 1993 was not corroborated by PW-2. He, however, stated that on 9th July, 1993, the appellant came to his ouse and disclosed that her husband and his mother had given her beatings and turned her out of the matrimonial home. However, this incident was not disclosed by the appellant in her testimony. The conduct charged as cruelty is to be of such a character as to cause in the mind of the appellant a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for the appellant to live with the respondent. Cruelty must be of such a character as to cause danger to life, limb or health or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The appellant was required to prove that respondent had treated the appellant with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for the appellant to live with the respondent, which she failed to do so. There is insufficient material on record including the evidence of the parties to establish the cause of cruelty. Thus, the Additional District Judge rightly observed that the incidents of cruelty narrated by the appellant were not so grave which come within the scope of concept of cruelty. The impugned judgment/order does not suffer from any legal infirmity.