R. Lakshmi
Narayan Vs. Santhi [2001] Insc 259 (1 May 2001)
D.P.
Mohapatra & U.C. Banerjee D.P.Mohapatra ,J.
L.I.T.J
On
analysis of the case of the parties and the contentions raised by learned
counsel on their behalf, the question that arises for determination is whether
the appellant has established a case for declaring the marriage null and void
under section 12(1)(b) read with Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
? The appellant is the husband of the respondent. They were married according
to Hindu rites and rituals on 1-11- 1987. It is relevant to note here that it
was an arranged marriage and the decision was taken after the appellant had met
the respondent and talked with her. After staying together for about 25 days
the couple parted company.
Thereafter
the appellant filed a petition under section 5(ii) read with section 12(1)(b)
on 12.2.1988 seeking a declaration that the marriage is null and void as the
respondent suffers from chronic and incurable mental disorder and is not in a
fit mental state to lead a married life. In support of his case the appellant
alleged inter alia that on the night of the marriage he found respondent to be
drowsy; she refused to have cohabitation; on being questioned by him she said
that she has been suffering from mental disorder since her childhood; she did
not want to have any marriage relationship, but under pressure from her parents
the marriage with the appellant was performed. The appellant further alleged
that when father of the respondent was informed about her physical and mental
condition he disclosed that his daughter has been under treatment for some
mental disease and gave the prescription given by the doctor. The appellant
pleaded that he and his father made attempts for curing the respondent of the
ailment suffered by her but such attempts proved futile. Under such compelling
circumstances he filed the petition seeking the declaration that the marriage
was null and void.
Respondent
in her written statement refuted the allegations made in the petition/plaint.
She denied that she suffered from any mental disorder, far less of a chronic
and incurable nature. She also denied that she had no cohabitation with her
husband or that she had expressed that she was not interested in leading
married life. She asserted that immediately after the marriage she and her
husband lead a happy married life; they went to different places and visited
temples. She also asserted that she has all along been ready and willing to
lead a normal marital life with the appellant; but the appellant is interested
in having a second marriage so that he may get more dowry.
According
to the respondent the reason for which she has not been able to lead a normal
family life is on account of refusal of the appellant to share the marital
relationship with her.
The
trial court on assessing the evidence on record dismissed the petition filed by
the appellant holding, inter alia, that he had failed to establish that the
respondent was suffering from any mental disorder or that there was no
cohabitation or that the respondent was not in a fit mental state to lead a
married life. The trial court which had the privilege of observing the
respondent as a witness and watching her demeanor made the following
observations in the judgment:
The
respondent was examined in this court from 11.25 a.m. to 1.25 p.m. During the
enquiry, it did not appear from her activities that her mental condition and
activities had been affected. She has given answer very clearly to the
questions posed by the petitioners advocate. This court is not a medical
expert. But there was an opportunity to watch the activities and movements of
the respondent. Since it is not proved from the activities and the letters of
the respondent that she had incurable mental disease and since the marital
relationship is fulfilled by the cohabitation between the petitioner and the
respondent, it is decided that the respondent is fit for marital relationship
and she is not affected by mental disease Since the petition is filed within a
year from 1.11.1987, the date of marriage, this petition is not sustainable
under law and it is decided that this marriage is not fit to be declared null
and void.
On
appeal by the appellant the appellate court found fault with the judgment of
the trial court on the ground that the trial judge had not considered the
documentary evidence in the case including the prescription issued by Dr. Papa Kumari
of Chennai. The Court held that within a few days of the marriage the spouses
had parted company and thereafter there has been no meeting between them. The
appellate court accepted the case of the appellant that there was no
cohabitation between the parties to the marriage. Taking note of certain
statements made by the respondent in her evidence the appellate court found
that she has admitted that she has been suffering from a mental disorder from
her childhood; that she was given injection once in a month and used to take
drugs whenever she had headache. On such findings the appellate court reversed
the judgment of the trial court and allowed the petition filed by the
appellant.
The
second appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by the High Court, the
judgment of the first appellate court was reversed and the judgment of the
trial court was restored. The High Court, as appears on perusal of the
judgment, mainly considered the question whether the appellant was aware of the
physical and mental disorder of the respondent before the marriage. The High
Court held that the marriage was not vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation.
The appellant (husband) had opportunity to meet the respondent (wife) and to
know her physical and mental condition. The Court did not accept the case of
the appellant that the respondent was suffering from chronic and incurable
mental disorder and that there was no cohabitation between the parties.
The
appellant husband has filed this appeal by special leave under Article 136 of
the Constitution, assailing the judgment of the High Court.
Since
the decision in the case depends on interpretation of sections 5(ii) (a) and
(b) and section 12(1)(b) the said sections are quoted hereunder for convenience
of reference :
5.
Conditions for a Hindu marriage A marriage may be solemnized between any two
Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:-
(i)
Xxx xxx xxx
(ii) at
the time of the marriage, neither party
(a) is
incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of
mind; or
(b) though
capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of
such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the
procreation of children;
12. Voidable
Marriages (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement
of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on
any of the following grounds , namely xxx xxx xxxx (b)that the marriage is in
contravention of the conditions specified in clause (ii) of section 5.
Section
5 provides that a marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus if the
conditions specified in the section are fulfilled. Amongst the other conditions
stated therein in sub-section (ii) it is laid down that at the time of marriage
neither party is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of
unsoundness of mind or though capable of giving a valid consent, has been
suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be
unfit for marriage and the procreation of children.
The
clause lays down as one of the conditions for a Hindu marriage that neither
party must be suffering from unsoundness of mind, mental disorder, insanity or
epilepsy and section 12(1)(b) refers that any marriage shall be voidable and
may be annulled if the marriage is in contravention of the condition specified
in clause (ii) of section 5. On a plain reading of the said provision it is
manifest that the conditions prescribed in that section, if established,
disentitles the party to a valid marriage. The marriage is not per se void but voidable
under the clause.
Such
conditions in the very nature of things call for strict standard of proof. The
onus of proof is very heavy on the party who approaches the Court for breaking
a marriage already solemnized.
An
objection to a marriage on the ground of mental incapacity must depend on a
question of degree of the defect in order to rebut the validity of a marriage
which has in fact taken place. As noted earlier, the onus of bringing a case
under this clause lies heavily on the petitioner who seeks annulment of the marriage
on the ground of unsoundness of mind or mental disorder. The court will examine
the matter with all possible care and anxiety.
Bearing
in mind the principles which flow from a fair reading of the statutory
provisions noted above we proceed to examine whether the appellant has
succeeded in establishing the case for declaring the marriage null and void on
the ground of mental incapacity of his wife at the time of marriage. Even
accepting the findings recorded by the first appellate court which decided the
case in favour of the appellant as correct then the position that emerges is
that the respondent has been under treatment for some mental problem before the
marriage; and that there was no cohabitation between the parties during the
period of about one month during which they stayed together. On these findings
can it be held that a case for declaring the marriage to be invalid under
section 12(1)(b) read with section 5 (ii)(b) has been established. It is not
the case of the appellant that the respondent was incapable of giving valid
consent to the marriage in consequence of unsoundness of mind at the time of
marriage. From the facts found by the appellate court it cannot be held that
the respondent has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to
such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and procreation of children. To draw
such an inference merely from the fact that the spouses had no cohabitation for
a short period of about a month, is neither reasonable nor permissible. To
brand the wife as unfit for marriage and procreation of children on account of
the mental disorder it needs to be established that the ailment suffered by her
is of such a kind or such an extent that it is impossible for her to lead a
normal married life. This is the requirement of the law as appears on fair
reading of the statutory provisions. The appellate court has also not
specifically given such a finding. Merely giving a finding that the respondent
was suffering from some mental disorder and she did not have cohabitation with
her husband during the period they stayed together is not sufficient to comply
with the condition prescribed under section 5(ii)(b) of the Act. We deem it
relevant to note here that the observations in the judgment of the trial court
about the physical and mental condition of the respondent which have been noted
earlier indicates the position that the requirement of section 5(ii)(b) are far
from satisfied from the materials placed by the appellant. In the circumstances
the High Court cannot be faulted for having dismissed the petition filed by the
appellant under section 12(1)(b) read with section 5(ii)(b) of the Act. The
judgment of the High Court is no doubt far from satisfactory. The High Court
has not formulated any question of law in the judgment which is a mandatory
requirement under section 100 C.P.C. The High Court has also not considered the
relevant aspects of the matter other than fraud and misrepresentation about
mental condition of the respondent on the part of her parents at the time of
the marriage. We have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the
appellant to remit the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal. We however,
in the facts as above, do not feel it expedient to do so.Our attention has not
been drawn to any material on record which, if considered, would have tilted
the balance in favour of the appellant. It is our considered view that on the
facts and circumstances of the case and the materials placed on record this is
not a fit case for interfering with the judgment of the High Court in exercise
of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Accordingly
the appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without any order
of costs.
Back