Ground Of Spouse Suffering From Schizophrenia Not Sufficient For Grant Of Divorce Under Hindu Marriage Act: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court held that the ground of a spouse suffering from schizophrenia by itself is not sufficient for grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
The Lucknow Bench was dealing with an Appeal filed by the husband under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of HMA against the Judgment and Decree of the Family Court by which the Suit for Decree of divorce was dismissed.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed, “… it appears that the ground of a spouse suffering from schizophrenia, by itself is not sufficient for grant of a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) (iii) of H.M. Act as it may involve various degree of mental illness. The law provides that a spouse in order to prove a ground of divorce on the ground of mental illness, ought to prove that the spouse is suffering from a serious case of schizophrenia which must also be supported by medical reports and proved by cogent evidence before Court that disease is of such a kind and degree that husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with wife.”
The Bench enunciated that Section 13(1)(iii) of HMA does not make mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify dissolution of a marriage.
Advocate Bhavini Upadhyay appeared for the Appellant/husband while none appeared for the Respondent/wife.
Factual Background -
The Appellant/husband and Respondent/wife got married in 2003, however, subsequently in 2011, the husband filed a Divorce Suit under Section 13 of HMA on the allegation that after marriage, his wife came to the marital home thrice and during this period, her mental condition was not good. He alleged that she was suffering from schizophrenia of which he came to know after marriage as before marriage, his father-in-law never told him about her illness. It was pleaded that the disease of schizophrenia is hereditary and whatever children his wife will bear, will suffer from this disease and also due to this disease, her fertility has become zero due to which the husband’s lineage will end.
He further pleaded that he made constant efforts for his wife’s treatment but the doctors told him that the disease is incurable. It was also pleaded that in a state of mental illness, the mental condition of his wife was unnatural like she gets up and goes anywhere without informing anyone, loses sense of wearing clothes, and at night when the family members are asleep, she leaves the house alone. It was stated by the husband that his wife is being treated by a psychiatrist at Allahabad for a long time, yet there is no improvement and no possibility of improvement either. As the Family Court dismissed the Suit of husband, he was before the High Court.
The High Court in the above regard, noted, “… we are of the considered view that the facts of the present case sufficiently points towards the willful desertion by the respondent/wife without any plausible reasons, which are sufficient for grant of a decree of divorce in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. The Family Court has erred in not considering the plaintiff’s suit to the aforesaid aspect of the matter.”
The Court said that Section 13(1)(iii) of HMA does not make mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify dissolution of a marriage.
“The contest in which the ideas of unsoundness of mind and mental disorder occur in section as ground for dissolution of a marriage, require assessment of degree of mental disorder and its degree must be such that spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not recognized as grounds for grant of decree. The medical concern against too readily reducing a human being into a functional nonentity 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 H.M. Act”, it emphasised.
The Court added that the personality disintegration that characterizes schizophrenia may be of varying degrees and that not all schizophrenics are characterized by same intensity of disease. It said 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.
“After considering entire evidence available on record, this Court has no hesitation in accepting findings and approach of learned Family Court, which appears to be valid and practical. Though, appellant/ husband was able to prove that respondent/ wife is suffering from schizophrenia, but he failed to prove that disease is of such a kind and degree, which may be accepted for dissolution of marriage in terms of Section 13 (1) (iii) of H.M. Act”, it said.
As regard the contention of the Appellant’s counsel that the Trial Court omitted to consider that the ground of divorce was concealment of material fact considering the mental condition of wife, the Court observed that the suit was filed under Section 13 of HMA and not under Section 12 of HMA and this ground is not available under Section 13 of HMA but under Section 12(1)(c).
However, the Court took note of the fact that the wife is not contesting the Appeal, which shows that she has no interest in her relation with the Appellant and which indicates that the she has abandoned the relationship between herself and the Appellant and an animus deserendi on her part, which is sufficient to constitute desertion. Hence, it decided to dissolve their marriage.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the Judgment of the Family Court, and dissolved the marriage.
Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:71619-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Bhavini Upadhyay, Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, and Sandhya Dubey.
