Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The appellant had to go to Japan on an assignment from the company from April, 1999 to August, 1999. The respondent was six months' pregnant at that time. While in Japan, the appellant was constantly in touch with the respondent on telephone; besides, letters were also exchanged. During this time, the respondent shuttled between Karnal and Yamuna Nagar. While she was at Karnal, the appellant's parents had to face a rough and tough time because the respondent had fits. The respondent had an abnormal behaviour from 09.06.1999 to June, 2000 as she had fits on a number of occasions which were manageable. The appellant had to shift his residence to Flat No.31, Park View Appartment, Sector 15, Phase-II, Gurgaon on 01.05.2000. Hardly a month had passed, the health of the respondent deteriorated. She again started running out of the house during nights. She even threw the child of the parties mercilessly on the floor without knowing its consequences. The child wept uncontrollably and it became a difficult situation. The parents of the respondent were called and all that had happened was shown to them. They were requested to get consultation from a senior psychiatrist but they did not agree and refused to cooperate. The condition of the respondent was deteriorating day by day but the respondent's parents went away and the appellant was in a great fix as the respondent was not cooperative. The parties were going in their car in the evening on 28.10.2000. The respondent opened the window of the car and was about to jump out of the car in a fit along with the child. The tragedy was avoided by the appellant in a very skilled manner. The appellant went to meet his uncle (Satish Chander Sharma) at Kurukshetra University sometime in the second week of November,2000. While retuning back at about 7.00 P.M, the respondent asked the appellant to stop the car at the University gate. The respondent came out of the car and created an ugly situation. She started weeping and abusing and a crowd gathered. The appellant on this called his uncle who came running there and took them to his house. The respondent was again managed to be shown to Dr. J.C. Bhatla at Karnal on 15.11.2000 who referred her to be taken to P.G.I. at Chandigarh or AIMS at Delhi. The respondent, however, did not cooperate and refused to be consulted by any doctor and take any medicine. The parents of the respondent were called and they came very late at night on 15.11.2000. They held out threats to the appellant and his parents of dire consequences. They said that they would themselves get the respondent consulted from Dr. Kesho Ram of Yamuna Nagar who was M. D. in Psychiatry. They also disclosed that the respondent was under his treatement before marriage. The parents were also asked as to why they concealed this fact from them at the time of marriage but they kept silent. The respondent remained at Yamuna Nagar till March, 2001. During this period, the appellant visited her at Yamuna Nagar several times. He requested them that she be got consulted at PGI, Chandigarh for treatment. However, whenever the question of treatment arose, they become furious. The father of the respondent also started using unparliamentary language and threatened the appellant with dire consequences. The mother and aunt of the respondent took her to Pune in the end of March,2001 where Neeraj, younger brother of the appellant, was staying with Stuti. They left the respondent there. The appellant and his parents brought the respondents back to Gurgaon on 7/8th May, 2001. The respondent then become very serious and her behaviour was not controllable. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Nagpal, M.D., PGI at Delhi was consulted. He checked the respondent and she was found to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and informed that she could behave quite unpredictable. He prescribed medicines for her but the respondent refused to take any medicine without the permission of her parents. The said fact was again brought to the notice of the parents of the respondent and the appellant also called sister of the respondent namely Stuti and Neeraj from Pune who came in the morning of 03.06.2001. The respondent on the same evening on 03.06.2001 brought a knife from the kitchen and was about to stab the child. She was checked with force and then she ran out of the house and threatened that she would kill everybody. The things were highly out of control and the situation was panicky. The appellant called the parents and brother of the respondent. The father and Shri Anirudh brother of the respondent came in the morning on 04.06.2001. Both of them saw that the situation was beyond control. They took the respondent to Yamuna Nagar and promised that she would be got admitted in a proper hospital at Yamuna Nagar or at PGI, Chandigarh. The respondent was residing at Yamuna Nagar since 04.06.2001. The appellant went twice to know about her welfare and further asked for her treatment but the appellant was illtreated and was not allowed to meet her. The said facts it is stated amount to cruelty, mental and physical which has not been condoned by the appellant. The factum of disease which the respondent had not disclosed at the time of marriage. Neither the respondent nor her parents disclosed that the respondent was suffering from mental disorder before marriage. Things had been tactfully and fraudulently concealed. A resume of the facts submitted it is mentioned clearly establishes that the respondent had been suffering intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the appellant could not reasonably be expected to live with her. The disability of mind of the respondent was of such a nature which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on her part. It is submitted that the mental disorder had completely arrested the development of her mind and she suffers from inability to manage her affairs. The things had reached to such an extent that the appellant could not safely live with the respondent and he had apprehension in her company. The fact that the respondent was suffering from mental illness had been concealed and was kept as a top secret at the time of marriage. The respondent was suffering from the disease before her marriage and this information was wilfully suppressed and had it been disclosed, the appellant would not have married her. The consent of the appellant had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.

Dr. Renu Bhatia (PW-4) tendered her affidavit in evidence in which it is deposed that she is M.Phill and consulting clinical Psychologist with 14 years of experience as Consulting Clinical Psychologist. She had been working with Dr. Rajesh Kumar Nagpal MD (PGI) who was a Consultant Neuro Psychologist and Psychotherapist. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Nagpal and she herself were practicing at Delhi. She had personally examined Mrs. Shruti Sharma i.e. the respondent on 22.05.2001. She was referred to her by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Nagpal, MD vide prescription slip dated 21.05.2001. She had worked with Dr. R. K. Nagpal and was conversent with his handwriting. The original prescription slip had been seen by her which was Ex.P-1. She had personally and thoroughly examined the patient Mrs. Shruti Sharma and her test report was Ex.P-2 which was signed by her and was prepared under her instruction. It was issued after having consultations with Dr. Rajesh Kumar Nagpal. In cross-examination it is stated by Dr. Renu Bhatia (PW-4) that she prefixed the word 'Doctor' before her name because she had undergone clinical training. However, she could not sight any instructions by which she has been authorized to use that word. She could not tell whether she could prefix the word 'Doctor' before her name or not. She did M.Phill from Central University of Psychiatry, Ranchi University in 1987. The test that was conducted by her in the present case was known as Projective Test. In this test, they show the patient photographs of some object. It was a conformity test. She did not conduct any test to check the IQ of the patient. Schizophrenia, it is stated, was of five-six types. She could not say that in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, it has been reported that if there was disorder in secretion from sex glands, it may lead to schizophrenia. It is stated as incorrect that she had given her report Ex.P-2 falsely at the dictates of the appellant to help him. It is also stated as incorrect that the respondent was hale and hearty and was not suffering any such disease as had been informed by her. A perusal of the report Ex.P-2 shows that the respondent was administered the Rorschach Psychodiagnostic Test. The test behaviour of the respondent has been mentioned as cooperative during testing but became restless midway and desired to leave the room. Besides, bizarre responses, space responses, confabulation and contamination were observed in the protocol. The test findings are mentioned that productivity was less than average within average reaction time. Her organizing and synthesizing capacity was poor. Reality contact was diminished with decline in ego strength. She was unable to empathize with human beings and unable to conform to social norms. The conclusions are mentioned that there were less number of responses, low productivity, bizarre responses, contamination, confabulation and space responses suggestive of schizophrenia with paranoid features. Therefore, according to Dr. Renu Bhatia (PW-4), the respondent was a patient of schizophrenia with paranoid features.

During the pendency of the appeal, a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (S.S.Saron, J) was a Member, passed a detailed order on 30.11.2004 for medical examination of the respondent by a Board of Doctors to be constituted by the Medical Superintendent of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science (PGIMS), Chandigarh to examine the respondent with regard to her alleged illness of paranoid schizophrenia and submit a report in this regard. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant had contended that the petition for divorce was filed on the solitary ground that the respondent-wife was suffering from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the appellant could not reasonably be expected to live with her. It was inter alia contended that the appellant had in fact submitted an application dated 21.05.2003 for medical examination of the respondent by expert doctors of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Chandigarh. The filing of such an application was necessitated as the three doctors who were summoned by the Court at the instance of the appellant had though been duly served but they did not appear to testify. It was submitted that the application had erroneously been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 25.07.2003. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant had contended that this Court may order medical examination of the respondent wife in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Sharda v. Dharampal, AIR 2003 SC 3450.

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent strenuously contended that the respondent was not suffering from any mental disorder of paranoid schizophrenia and the ground had been taken by the appellant only as a ruse to get divorce from his wife. It was submitted that the brother of the appellant was married to the sister of the respondent and the said marriage was solemnized ten months after the marriage between the parties to the present petition. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent was, however, agreeable to the medical examination of the respondent by a panel or a Board of Doctors to be constituted by the PGI, Chandigarh.