Allahabad High Court: In an appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘Act’) against the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, whereby the Trial Court dismissed the divorce case instituted by the husband, seeking dissolution of his marriage on the grounds of insanity and cruelty, the division bench of Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh, JJ. held that that unless the pre-existing and irreversible mental condition of the wife had been proven and unless by its very nature that condition was such as to give the husband a reason to seek dissolution of his marriage under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act, the fact thus proven remained extraneous to the grounds raised.
The marriage between the parties was solemnized in 2005. They lived together for almost seven years. Two daughters were born to them, both of whom are in the custody of the wife. The parties have been living separately since January 2012. The husband is a driver in the Provincial Arms Constabulary. Maintenance is being paid to the wife and her two daughters under an order passed in separate proceedings.
The Court noted that the husband was burdened to establish either that the wife was incurably of unsound mind or that she had been afflicted by such a medical condition as may be described as a continuous or intermittent mental disorder of a kind in which the husband may not be reasonably expected to live with her.
The Court further noted that medical condition which qualifies as mental disorder must be a medical illness involving arrested or incomplete development of the mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of the mind, including schizophrenia. Further, ‘psychopathic disorder’ has also been defined as a persistent disorder or disability of the mind that may result in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the person alleged to be afflicted by such a condition.
The Court said that the husband never attempted to establish before the Trial Court that the wife was incurably of unsound mind or was suffering continuously or intermittently from any mental disorder that may have given the husband a reason to live away from her.
The Court said that while the husband and his witnesses made statements stating that the wife had been prescribed medicines for her mental ill health, however, they did not demonstrate the nature of her illness, or the extent of affliction (if any) suffered by her. Further, it was not proven if any specific/particular medicine had been prescribed, as may be prescribed only to a person who may fall within the scope of Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act.
The Court held that unless the pre-existing and irreversible mental condition of the wife had been proven and unless by its very nature that condition was such as to give the husband a reason to seek dissolution of his marriage under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act, the fact thus proven remained extraneous to the grounds raised.
The Court said that no material or evidence has been shown to exist on the record that led to doubt the correctness of the other finding recorded by the Trial Court as to lack of proof of insanity and cruelty alleged by the husband. Thus, no ground for divorce, either on account of insanity or cruelty, is made out.
The Court noted that despite the bad matrimonial relationship suffered and even though in such circumstances, often criminal prosecutions and other proceedings are lodged against husbands, here no such proceedings were lodged against the husband. Thus, the matrimonial dispute that arose has remained a matrimonial dispute, till now.
The Court noted that according to the husband himself (as admitted by him during his cross examination), the medical condition of the wife was reversible to the extent that the doctor had advised her to continue her medication, which would lead to a cure.
Thus, the Court said that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
[X v. Y, First Appeal No. 455 of 2013, decided on 30-08-2024]
