Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. The Appellant was convinced that the Respondent was suffering from some mental disease named Paranoid Schizophrenia and such disease was hereditary and could be further transmitted to offsprings. The Respondent left the matrimonial home on 20-9-1983 and now she is living with her uncle at Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi.

16. The Respondent in the written statement has denied all the allegations of cruelty and of menial disorder. According to her, she has behaved like a responsible wife and the allegations which are alleged to have been made on 23-4-1983 or at Shimla and on subsequent occasions have been totally denied. She has alleged that from the day she has been taken to the matrimonial home, she has not been treated properly by the Respondent (Appellant?) and the members of his family. It has been alleged against her that she talked to one Atul, who was the relative of the Appellant and had been served food along with the Respondent. On the bridal night of the same day, the Appellant himself came late at night from the house of her sister and he himself expressed that he was not able to consummate the marriage with the Respondent. She has further denied that she has spurned every effort of the petitioner for consummation of marriage on that date or afterwards or she has put any question whether the Appellant was married earlier. She has further denied that she has been suffering from any mental disorder and she washed her hands 5/6 times almost on ten occasions, a day or rechecking of locks of boxes and doors again and again. She has also denied the allegation made against her about her behavior on the day when she was launched in kitchen. She has also denied that she was in the habit of sleeping in the day time as being a working lady she has to work in the office. The alleged incident which took place over the lunch not being served in time or awakening her up in the day time is also denied. Further the writing of the letters have also been denied. Rather, it has been alleged that the Appellant has sent a photo copy of the letter, sent by her, to her father. It has further been alleged by her that the Appellant on visiting Kota in July, 1983 scolded the Respondent and told her that the women is equal to man's shoe and it could be changed at any time. He refused to have meals. She has denied having behaved in manners as alleged -

(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind an.d to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Respondent.

Explanation -- In this clause,--

(a) the expression "mental disorder" means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia;

(b) the expression "psychopathic disorder" means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub normality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; or ....."

52. The next issues that arise for determination in these appeals are whether the respondent is suffering from mental disorder/ schizophrenia before marriage and this fact was concealed at the time of marriage or after the marriage. Issue No. 2 in HMA 270/84 and Issue No. 1 in HMA 596/83 can be conveniently decided together.

53. According to the appellant, the appellant has also taken this ground of mental disorder in HMA 596/83 for nullity and dissolution of marriage under S. 12(l)(c) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that his consent for marriage was obtained by fraud as the respondent before marriage was suffering from mental disorder/ schizophrenia before the marriage and is also suffering after the marriage. No doubt the endeavor of the appellant has been to show and demonstrate that the respondent was suffering from mental disorder/schizophrenia and he cannot live with the respondent. In the pleadings and evidence he had tried to show that her behavior was abnormal and that she was suffering from schizophrenia which was kept secret from him and his consent for marriage was obtained by playing fraud on him. The respondent washed her hands several times and was checking locks again and again, and she insisted for full bath after performance of marital intercourse during their stay at Shimla in spite of the fact that the appellant was suffering from fever; the respondent cried loudly at times or was suffering from some kind of obsession before the marriage and used to say that she had super-natural power and at one stage predicated that the appellant would die in two years. He has cited various instance of throwing chappals and displaying abnormal or hysteric behavior, as already stated in the petition, in order to demonstrate that she was suffering from schizophrenia. He has also tried to demonstrate by stating various facts in his evidence. In my opinion the appellant has not been able to establish that she was suffering from mental disorder/schizophrenia and prove these issues. Whether or not she is suffering from Schizophrenia, it depends mainly on the medical evidence. The appellant has produced Dr. Bimal Chaudhary as P.W. 3 in order to demonstrate that the respondent is suffering from mental disorder or schizophrenia, Dr. Chaudhary has stated that he is a M.B.B.S. and has passed his diploma in Psychiatrist in 1975. He has worked as a Registrar in G. B. Pant Hospital from 1977 to 1980. He worked as Lecturer in the Maulana Azad Medical College. Since 1982 he is in private practice. He has produced a certificate Ext. P.W. 3/1 dated 13-10-1983 issued by him. According to this certificate, the respondent was examined by him and he found that she was suffering from Schizophrenia. The respondent has denied that she was ever examined by Dr. Chaudhary. Dr. Chaudhary has stated that he observed the respondent in a park in Connaught Place hear bank whose name he did not know. Normally it is not the practice of the doctors to examine a patient in a park. His statement cannot be relied upon for the reason that he knows the sister of the appellant Mrs. Dr. Misra who is also a doctor working in the same complex. He also knew .. the husband of his sister Dr. Misra. He has also stated that Ms. Veena Chaudhary and the sister of the appellant have worked together and possibly they had friendly relations with each other. In these circumstances P.W. 3 cannot be considered as an independent witness. Furthermore, the doctor has not produced any register of appointment of patients in order to show that she was examined by him and therefore his testimony does not inspire confidence. The instances of behavior of the respondent cited by the appellant in order to substantiate that the respondent was suffering from mental disorder are also not of such a nature which would show that she was suffering from schizophrenia. On the other hand, the respondent has produced Dr. K. M. Aggarwal who is M.D. Psychiatry and is a psychiatrist in Shahdara Hospital for mental diseases. He examined the respondent himself as a member of the medical board comprising of Dr. A. K. Biswas, Dr. A. D. Nayar and himself who were all working at the Shahdara mental hospital. According to the opinion of the Board at Ext. R. W. 3/1, respondent is not suffering from any psychiatric illness or schizophrenia.

54. It may be noted that the respondent was examined by the Medical Board of Shahdara Hospital for mental diseases under the order of the Court dated 22-3-1988 on the application filed by the appellant. In face of the authoritative opinion of the medical board it stands established that the respondent is not suffering from mental disorder. In this context the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Narain Gupta v. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta, may be noted. This is an illustrious judgment on schizophrenia and the Supreme Court has explained what schizophrenia is. The Supreme Court in that case has held that the context in which the ideas of unsoundness of "mind" and "mental disorder" occur in the section as grounds for dissolution of a marriage, require the assessment of the degree of the "mental disorder". Its degree must be such as that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other Degree of mental disorder must be proved. In the present case, as already stated, there is no medical evidence to prove mental disorder of the respondent and having regard the test laid down by the Supreme Court of Schizophrenia, the respondent cannot be said to be suffering from schizophrenia mental disorder as alleged by the appellant and that further in such circumstances, the question whether the appellant can reasonably be expected to live with other does not arise. Therefore, both the aforementioned issues are accordingly decided against the appellant and in favor of the respondent.