Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Ranjan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that mere existence of mental disorder of any degree is not sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of marriage.    

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the case of Pawan Kumar Pandey v. Sudha. 

What was the Background of Pawan Kumar Pandey v. Sudha Case?  

• The Appellant (husband) and the respondent got married in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremonies. 
• The wife came to her marital home however, subsequently, the appellant filed a suit for divorce under Section 13 of HMA. 
• It is the case of the husband that the mental condition of his wife is not good as she was suffering from Schizophrenia which he came to know only after marriage.  
• It is the case of the husband that owing to the mental illness the wife has been showing erratic behavior like getting up at night and going anywhere without informing anyone, losing sense of clothing etc. 
• The wife, however, alleged ill treatment at the hands of the husband and the family members of the husband. 
• The wife prayed for the dismissal of the husband’s petition for divorce.  
• The Learned Family Court dismissed the suit filed by the husband for grant of divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).  
• The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of HMA and Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) assailing the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court in this case examined the divorce on the grounds of “cruelty” and “desertion”. 
• The Court observed that there was willful desertion in this case as the respondent lived with the appellant only for few days and did not return to live with him for more than a decade. 
• The above conduct of the appellant shows that the respondent has abandoned the relationship between herself and the appellant and there is an animus deserendi on the part of the wife which is sufficient to constitute desertion. 
•  On the ground provided for under Section 13 (1) (iii) of HMA the Court held that mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree is not sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of a marriage. 
• The degree of mental illness should be such that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. 
• The Court finally observed that though the husband has been successful in proving that the wife is suffering from schizophrenia he failed to prove that the disease is of such a degree that it may be accepted as a ground for dissolution of marriage.  
• No sufficient material was brought on record by husband except prescriptions of doctors, which do not contain any specific finding that disease is having grave consequences as is referred to under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the H.M. Act. 
• The Court finally set aside the decree of the Lower Court and allowed the appeal.

What is Section 13 (1) (iii) of HMA?

• Section 13 of the HMA lays down grounds of divorce. 
• Section 13 (1) (iii) lays down that when a spouse is suffering from unsound mind divorce can be granted. 
• The main grounds under Section 13 (1) (iii) are: 
  • The respondent (spouse) has been incurably of unsound mind 
  • or has been suffering from mental disorder (continuous or intermittent) 
  • The condition must be severe enough that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with them 
• Explanation (a) provides the meaning of expression “mental disorder” which means: 
  • Mental illness, or 
  • Arrested or incomplete development of mind 
  • Psychopathic disorder or 
  • Any other disorder or disability of mind and 
  • Includes schizophrenia 
• Explanation (b) provides the meaning of the expression “psychopathic disorder” which means: 
  • A persistent disorder or disability of mind 
  • May or may not include low intelligence 
  • Results in either:  
    • Abnormally aggressive behavior 
    • or seriously irresponsible conduct 
  • Medical treatment may or may not be required/possible. 

What are the Landmark Judgments? 

• Ram Narain Gupta v. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta (1988) 
  • Each case of Schizophrenia has to be considered on its own merits. Mere branding of a person as Schizophrenic will not  suffice.  For the purpose of Section 13 (1) (iii) Schizophrenia is what Schizophrenia does. Not all schizophrenics are characterized by the same intensity of the disease.   
  • Section 13(1)(iii) does not make the mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient to justify the dissolution of a marriage.  
  • The burden of proof of the existence of the requisite degree of mental disorder is on the spouse basing the claim on that state of facts. 
  • The context in which the ideas of unsoundness of `mind’ and `mental-disorder' occur in the section  as ground for dissolution of a marriage, require the assessment  of the degree of the `mental-disorder'.  
  • Its degree must be such that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not recognized as grounds for grant of decree. 
• Kollam Chandra Sekhar v. Kollam Padma Latha (2014) 
  • The Court cited the judgment of Whysall v. Whysall (1959) wherein it was held that that a spouse is ‘incurably of unsound mind’ if he or she is of such mental incapacity as to make normal married life impossible and there is no prospect of any improvement in mental health, which would make this possible in future. 
  • The Court observed in this case that the respondent, even if she did suffer from schizophrenia, is in a much better health condition at present. 
  • Thus, the Court did not allow the plea of dissolution of marriage.