Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: A Division Bench of A.M. Shaffique and T.V. Anilkumar, JJ., while dismissing the petition filed in respect to challenging the family court’s order for dissolution of marriage, stated that,

“..Since 2005 both wife and husband have not been able to unite and lead a normal matrimonial life all these years. There is every reason to assume that their matrimonial relationship is emotionally dead.”

In the present case, the wife challenged the order passed by the family court with respect to the dissolution of marriage with her husband.

The contention as submitted by the husband was that immediately after the marriage he had noticed that the wife was suffering from some sort of mental disease and behaving in an abnormal manner and for that reason was treated in Mental Hospital. Later he learned that she was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia which had started even before marriage for which she was treated earlier i.e. before marriage as well. Hoping for the wife to be better he continued with the marriage.

Adding to the above contentions, he submitted that she failed to discharge her duties as a wife and take care of her own child. In view of the said, he made his intention very clear in the year 2005 to her father that he could no longer continue with the matrimonial life with her and therefore he needed to dissolve the marriage. Her father agreed to the same and since then the wife has been staying with her father.

In respect to all the stated allegations of cruelty and mental disorder, the husband filed the original petition under Section 10(1)(iii) & (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869. Along with the stated he also sought a declaration that the marriage was null and void since the wife was suffering from the mental disease at the time of marriage.

Wife’s denial

All the stated contentions were denied by the wife, wherein she stated that the child was removed from her custody under the false pretext that she was suffering from some mental illness.

She further added that her negligible behavioural problems were exaggerated and presented before the doctors as acts amounting to mental illness and accordingly all the medical records were manipulated.

Lower Court’s stand

Court below held that the marriage was not null and void and rejected the claim for a declaration. It, however, held that the medical records sufficiently proved the wife to be a Paranoid Schizophrenia patient and she was suffering from the same even prior to the date of her marriage.

The lower court also found that her conduct and behaviour in matrimonial life amounted to acts of cruelty and accepting both the grounds urged under Section 10(1)(iii) & (x) of the Act, the respondent was granted an order dissolving the marriage between spouses.

High Court’s Observation and Analysis

The sole challenge raised in the present petition was with respect to the correctness of the order of the court below granting dissolution of marriage accepting grounds of cruelty and incurable mental illness urged by the respondent.

Court found that there was nothing on record to prove that the wife had been incurablY of unsound mind as required to be proved by Section 10(1)(iii) of the Act.

The essential ingredient to be proved for securing an order of dissolution of marriage under the above clause is that the mental illness shall be of such a nature that it is incurable.

Thus, disagreeing with the view of the Court below, Court held that the husband failed to establish ground under Section 10(1) (iii) of the Act for passing an order of dissolution and impugned order by the family court required interference in this respect.

High Court further noted that the husband had stated that right from the marriage, he had been trying to adjust with the wife and due to her mental ailment, he always had to care of her due to whom he was confined to home and prevented from mingling with associates and participating in social functions. This all resulted in a doomed and secluded life for him. He never received any love or affection from the wife and the same was the case with the minor child.

Court added that it remains to be a fact the child was taken care of by her father since the time of her birth and to the present time the child is with her father. Wife’s inability to take care of the child needs to be taken serious note of.

Continuation of the husband’s matrimonial life would only deprive him of mental peace as apprehended by the husband himself. In view of the stated, the lower Court agreed to it and even the High Court found no reason to disagree with the said view.

For all the above reasons together, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the finding of the Court below and the consequential order of granting the dissolution of marriage. [Dona T. George v. Mathews Purackal, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 4265, decided on 12-11-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of B.R. Gavai and Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ. allowed an appeal filed against the order of conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC passed by the trial court.

The appellant was convicted for the murder of the watchman of his housing society. The appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife for refusing to irrigate plants at his home. He was convicted by the order of the trial court, against which present appeal was preferred. Counsel for the appellant prayed for a benefit under Section 84 IPC as the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

The High Court perused the record and found that on an earlier occasion also, the appellant was tried under the same section but was given the benefit of Section 84 by the trial court. Reference was made to Supreme Court decision in Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 748, to observe that the circumstances of unsoundness of mind before and after the incident is a relevant fact to draw the inference that the appellant was under ailment at the relevant time, when he committed the crime. Appellant also examined his doctor that proved a history of mental illness. Further, immediately after the incident, the appellant was admitted to the hospital for the treatment of paranoid schizophrenia. It was held that the appellant had discharged the burden to show that he was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of the incident. Hence, the trial court was not right in refusing to grant him benefit under Section 84. Thus, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted. [Mohammed Rafiq Shahabuddin Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra,2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1461, dated 29-06-2018]