Allahabad High Court: In an appeal filed by the husband under Section 19 (1) of Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) and Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, againstthe Family Court’s order, refusing to grant of decree of divorce under Section 13 of HMA the division bench of Rajan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla*, JJ. while granting divorce, held that the couple’s separation for over a decade had irreparably damaged the marriage, effectively amounting to mental cruelty for the husband.
Background:
The parties got married on 08-06-2003. Subsequently, the husband filed for a divorce suit under Section 13 of HMA claiming that the wife suffered from Schizophrenia, which he came to know after the marriage, and despite getting her treated he could not live with her as she is mentally ill and could not bear children due to the disease being hereditary and incurable. The wife contended that the husband and his family subjected her to harassment for dowry due to which she barely lived in her marital home and even filed an FIR.
The Family Court ruled that the husband failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim that the wife was suffering from the alleged disease and was incapable of having children. As a result, the Court concluded that he was not entitled to a decree based on this allegation. Additionally, the Court observed that the husband had not provided any medical treatment for his wife, nor did he offer any justification for abandoning her. This conduct was seen as indicative of his neglect of marital duties and responsibilities towards his wife.
Issues and Analysis:
The Court noted three issues that had to be decided in the present appeal, which are as follows:
1. Whether the findings of the Family Court regarding the plea of cruelty as grounds for divorce, are perverse and unsustainable thereby rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable?
The Court relied on the case of Rakesh Raman v. Kavita 2023 SCC OnLine SC 497 wherein the Supreme Court explained the meaning of the word “cruelty” used in Section 13 of the HMA.
The Court noted that the parties cohabitated only for a brief period and that the wife has been residing separately since 2012, and that she never stayed for more than 6-7 days in the marital home and had no physical relationship with the husband.
Further, after noting that the wife was not contesting the appeal in spite of service on notice having been issued by this Court, and she has not come forward to oppose the pleas of the husband, the Court remarked that this shows her disinclination to live with the husband in spite of the stand taken by him.
The Court stated that the feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration of the husband caused by the conduct of wife for a long time may also lead to mental cruelty and the long period of continuous separation i.e. for more than a decade establishes that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair.
Thus, the Court viewed that the matrimonial bond had been ruptured beyond repair because of the continuous mental cruelty caused by the wife.
2. Whether the findings of the Family Court regarding the plea of desertion as grounds for divorce, are perverse and unsustainable thereby rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable?
After considering the fact that the wife has only ever lived with the husband for a few days , the Court held that this amounts to animus deserendi on her part which is sufficient to constitute desertion. Further, the Court held that such wilful desertion by the wife without any plausible reasons is sufficient for the grant of a decree of divorce in favour of the husband
3. Whether the findings of the Family Court regarding the plea that wife is suffering from such a disease, which may be treated as mental disorder under Section 13(1)(iii) for grant of decree of divorce, are perverse and unsustainable thereby rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable?
The Court relied on the cases of Kollam Chandra Sekhar v. Kollam Padma Latha (2014) 1 SCC 225 wherein the Court considered whether suffering from a serious mental disorder i.e., schizophrenia or incurable unsoundness of mind can be considered as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) and Ram Narain Gupta v. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta (1988) 4 SCC 247, wherein the Court answered this question. The Court said that the ground of a spouse suffering from schizophrenia, by itself is not sufficient for the grant of a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) (iii) of HMA as it may involve various degrees of mental illness.
The Court further opined that the law provides that to prove the ground of mental illness, it must be proved that the disease is of such a kind and degree that a spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with their spouse. The Court held that Section 13 (1) (iii) of HMA does not make the mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of a marriage. All mental abnormalities are not recognized as grounds for the grant of a decree. Further, the Court reiterated that the burden of proof of existence of requisite degree of mental disorder is on the spouse who bases his or her claim on such a medical condition.
The Court remarked that “the medical concern against too readily reducing a human being into a functional non-entity and as a negative unit in family or society is law’s concern also, and is reflected, at least partially, in the requirements of Section 13 (1)(iii) of HMA”.
The Court noted that the Family Court considered the fact of the wifebeing educated up to M.A. and, therefore, refused to accept that the disease of alleged mental illness was such that she could not lead a normal life. The Bench held that, based on the evidence on record, it has no hesitation in accepting the findings and approach of the Family Court, which appear to be valid and practical.
The Court concluded that although thehusband was able to prove that the wife is suffering from schizophrenia, he failed to prove that the disease is of such a kind and degree, that may be accepted for dissolution of marriage in terms of Section 13 (1) (iii) of HMA. Thus, the findings of the Family Court in this regard are just, proper, legal and do not suffer from any perversity, and do not call for any interference by this Court in this appeal.
Concerning the issue that the ground of divorce was concealment of material fact considering the mental condition of wife, the Court while rejecting this plea, opined that the suit was filed under Section 13 of the HMA and not under Section 12 of the HMA. This ground is not available under Section 13 but under Section 12 (1) (c) of HMA. No objection was raised, nor any application was given for framing any issue in terms of Section 12 (1) (c) of HMA.
Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court and dissolved the marriage between the parties.
[Pawan Kumar Pandey v. Sudha, 2024 SCC OnLine All 6778, judgment dated 24-10-2024]
*Judgment Authored by : Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Bhavini Upadhyay, Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, Sandhya Dubey