Supreme Court of India
KOLLAM CHANDRA SEKHARversusKOLLAM PADMA LATHA
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 629
- Decided
- 17 September 2013
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- G S SINGHVI
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the respondent was not proven to be incurably of unsound mind, and therefore the decree of divorce could not be granted; the High Court’s decision to dismiss the divorce petition and allow restitution of conjugal rights was affirmed.
Summary
The husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging his wife suffered from schizophrenia, while the wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The trial court granted the divorce and dismissed the restitution petition, but the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the divorce decree, finding no substantive evidence of a serious, incurable mental disorder and allowing restitution of conjugal rights. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the medical evidence, including reports from NIMHANS and the Institute of Mental Health, and held that the wife was not suffering from a condition that rendered her an "incurably unsound mind" as required by the statute. The Court affirmed that the husband had not discharged the burden of proving a severe, unmanageable mental illness, and that the High Court’s re‑appreciation of the facts was correct. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the High Court’s order, and granted a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the wife.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent suffered from a serious mental disorder such as schizophrenia that qualifies as "incurably unsound mind" under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Whether the High Court correctly re‑appreciated the evidence and set aside the trial court’s decree of divorce.
- Whether the appeal filed by the appellant should be allowed and the decree of divorce restored.
Legislation cited
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. 13(1)(iii), s. 9
Subjects
divorcemental illnessschizophreniaunsound mindHindu Marriage Actrestitution of conjugal rightsevidentiary burdenmarital law
Judgment
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 186
A KOLLAM CHANDRA SEKHAR
v.
KOLLAM PADMA LATHA
(Civil Appeal No. 8264 of 2013)
,.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2013
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.]
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s.13(1)(iii) - Dissolution of
marriage on ground of mental illness of spouse - Divorce
C petition filed by appellant-husband pleading that respondent-
wife was suffering from schizophrenia - Respondent-wife filed
petition for restitution of conjugal rights - Trial Court allowed
the divorce petition and dismissed the petition for restitution
of conjugal rights - Judgment reversed by the High Court -
D Justification - Held: Justified - The High Court rightly
examined the entire evidence on record and coffectly found
fault with the findings of fact recorded by the trial court with
regard to the ailment attributed to respondent for seeking
dissolution of marriage under the ground of 'unsound mind'
E which is a non-existent fact - Inability to manage his or her
affairs is an essential attribute of an "incurably unsound mind"
- The facts pleaded and the evidence placed on reoord
produced by the appellant did not establish such inability as
a ground on which dissolution of marriage was sought for by
F him - Respondent had not only completed MBBS but also
did a post graduate diploma in Medicine and was
continuously working as a Government Medical Officer and
had she been suffering from any serious kind of mental
disorder, particularly, acute type of schizophrenia, it would
have been impossible for her to work in the said post -
G Appellant did not prove the fact of mental disorder of the
respondent with reference to the a/legation made against her
that she has been suffering from schizophrenia by producing
positive and substantive evidence on record and on the other
H 186
KOLLAM CHANDRA SEKHAR v. KOLLAM PADMA 187
LATHA
hand, it is proved that respondent is in much better health A
.condition and does not show signs of schizophrenia as per
the most recent medical report from NIMHANS - The
respondent, even if she did suffer from schizophrenia, is in a
much better health condition at present - The two parties in
this case must reconcile and if the appellant so feels that the B
respondent is still suffering, then she must be given the right
treatment - It is not in the best interest of either the respondent
or her daughter who is said to;be of adolescent age for grant
of a decree of dissolution of marriage as prayed for by the
appellant. c
The questions which arose for consideration in the
present appeal were:- 1) Whether respondent-wife was
suffering from a serious mental disorder i.e.
schizophrenia or incurable unsoundness of mind, and
can this be considered as a ground for divorce under D
Section 13(1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; 2)
Whether the High Court had correctly re-appreciated the
facts pleaded and evidence on record while dismissing
the divorce petition of the appellant-husband and
allowing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights of E
the respondent-wife and 3) Whether the judgment and
decree of trial court granting divorce to the appellant-
husband should be restored and the petition for conjugal
. rights filed by the respondent-wife dismissed.
F
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The High Court rightly examined the
entire evidence on record and correctly found fault with.,,
the findings of fact recorded by the trial court with regard
to the ailment attributed to the respondent for seeking G
dissolution of marriage under the ground of 'unsound
mind' which is a non-existent fact. The judgment of the
High Court in not granting a decree of divorce and
· allowing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, is
upheld. [Paras 15, 24) [203-F; 211-G] H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A 1.2. In the instant case, as per the evidence of RW-2,
Superintendent, Institute of Mental Health, Hyderabad,
schizophrenia is a treatable, manageable disease, which
. can be put on par with hypertension and diabetes. So
also, PW-4, Professor and Head of Department of
B Psychiatry at NIMHANS, Bangalore who had examined
the respondent, stated that the team could not find any
evidence suggesting schizophrenia at the time of their
examining the respondent and he had stated in his cross-
examination that no treatment including drugs was given
c to her at NIMHANS as they did not find any abnormality
in her. They thus gave her a certificate of normal mental
status, based on the absence of any abnormal findings
in her medical report including psychiatric features in the
past history and normal psychological test. The trial
0 Judge misread the contents of the report dated 24.4.1999
given by the Doctors of Institute of Mental Health,
Hyderabad (Exh. B-10) and also wrongly interpreted the
same and recorded the finding that the respondent is
suffering from the ailment of 'schizophrenia'. [Para 16)
E [206-C-F]
1.3. The trial court erroneously came to the
conclusion that the respondent was suffering from
schizophrenia by relying on the evidence of PW-1, who
is the appellant and as per the opinion given by the
F Committee of Doctors in Ex.B-10 [certified copy of report
from Institute of Mental Health, Government Hospital for
Mental Care, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad]. In the
deposition by witness RW-2, he has stated in his
examination-in-chief that Schizophrenia has become
G eminently treatable with the advent of many new
psychiatric drugs. He further stated that many patients
with schizophrenia are able to lead a near normal life with
medication. The appellant has not proved the allegations
made in the petition against the respondent by adducing
H positive and substantive evidence on record to
KOLLAM CHANDRA SEKHAR v. KOLLAM PADMA 189
LATHA
substantiate the same and that the alleged ailment of the A
respondent would fall within the provision of Section
13(1 )(iii) of the Act. Therefore, he has not made out a case
for grant of decree for dissolution of marriage. [Para 17]
[207-A-E]
B
1.4. Inability to manage his or her affairs is an
essential attribute of an "incurably unsound mind". The
facts pleaded and the evidence placed on record
produced by the appellant in this case does not establish
such inability as a ground on which dissolution of C
marriage was sought for by him before the trial court.
[Para 18] [208-F]
1.5. The contents of Exh.B-10 as stated by the team
of doctors do not support the case of the appellant that
the respondent is suffering from a serious case of D
schizophrenia, in order to grant the decree of divorce
under Section 13(1) (iii) of the Act. The report states that
the respondent, although suffering from 'illness of
schizophrenic type', does not show symptoms of
psychotic illness at present and has responded well to E
the treatment from the acute phases and her symptoms
are fairly under control with the medication which had
been administered to her. It was further stated that if
there is good compliance with treatment coupled with
good social and family support, a schizophrenic patient F
can continue their marital relationship. In view of the
aforesaid findings and reasons recorded, it is clear that
the patient is not suffering from the symptoms of
schizophrenia. [Para 19) [209-B-E]
1.6. The respondent had not only completed MBBS G
but also did a post graduate diploma in Medicine and was
continuously working as a Government Medical Officer
and had she been suffering from any serious kind of
mental disorder, particularly, acute type of
schizophrenia, it would have been impossible for her to H
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A work in the said post. The appellant-husband cannot
simply abandon his wife because she is suffering from
sickness. [Para 20) [209-F-H]
1.7. The respondent, even if she did suffer from
8 schizophrenia, is in a much better health condition at
present. Therefore, this Court cannot grant the
dissolution of marriage on the basis of spouse's illness.
The appellant has not proved the fact of mental disorder
of the respondent with reference to the allegation made
C against her that she has been suffering from
schizophrenia by producing positive and substantive
evidence on record and on the other hand, it has been
proved that the respondent is in much better health
condition and does not show signs of schizophrenia as
per the most recent medical report from NIMHANS, as
D deposed by PW-4 in his evidence before the trial court.
[Para 21] [210-B-D]
1.8. The findings and reasons recorded in setting
aside the judgment and decree of the trial court is neither
E erroneous nor does it suffer from error in law which
warrants interference by the Supreme Court. Therefore,
this Court cannot interfere with the impugned judgment
of the High Court as the same is well-reasoned and
based on cogent reasoning of facts and evidence on
F record. [Para 22] [210-EaF)
1.9. Under Hindu law, marriage is an institution, a
meeting of two hearts and minds and is something that
cannot be taken lightly. Life is made up of good times and
bad, and the bad times can bring with it terrible illnesses
G and extreme hardships. The partners in a marriage must
weather these storms and embrace the sunshine with
equanimity. Any person may have bad health, this is not
ttieir fault and most times, it is not within their control, as
in the present case, the respondent was unwell and was
H taking treatment for the same. The illness had its fair
KOLLAM CHANDRASEKHAR v. KOLLAM PAOMA 191
LATHA
share of problems. Can this be a reason for the appellant A
to abandon her and seek dissolution of marriage after the
child is born out of their union? Since the child is now a
grown up girl, her welfare must be the prime
consideration for both the parties. The two parties in this
case must reconcile and if the appellant so feels that the B
respondent is stiU suffering, then she must be given the
right treatment. The resp·ondent must stick to her
treatment plan and make the best attempts to· get better.
It is not in the best interest of either the respondent or
her daughter who is said to be of adolescent age for grant c
of a decree of dissolution of marriage as prayed for by
the appellant. [Para 23] [210-G; 211-C-F]
Ram Narain Gupta vs. Rameshwari Gupta (1988) 5 SCC
247 - held applicable.
D
Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit (2006)3 SCC 778 :
2006 (3) SCR 116 - referred to.
Tarlochan Singh vs. Jit Kaur AIR 1986 P & H 379;
Pramatha Kumar Maity vs. Ashima Maity AIR 1991 Cal 123 E
and Mt. Ti/ti vs. Alfred Rebert Jones AIR 1934 All 273 -
referred to.
Whysa/I vs. Whysall (1959) 3 All ER 389 - referred to.
Ranganath Misra's Mayne's Treatise on Hindu Law and F
Usage, Fifteenth Edition, 2003, Bharat Law House at p.97
- referred to.
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1986 P & H 379 referred to Para 11 G
(1988) 5 sec 247 held applicable Para 14
2006 (3) SCR 116 referred to Para 15
(1959) 3 All ER 389 referred to Para 18
H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 11 S.C.R.
A AIR 1991 Cal 123 referred to Para 18
AIR 1934 All 273 referred to Para 19
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
8264 of 2013.
8
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.09.2006 of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in C.M.A. No. 2858 and
2859 of 2002.
Jaideep Gupta, 8. Suyodhan, Tatini Basu for the Appellant.
c
Pallav Sisodia, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Y. Vismai Rao, H.N.
Rath for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the common judgment
and order dated 28.09.2006 passed in CMA No. 2858 of 2002
and CMA No. 2859 of 2002 of the High Court of Andhra ,
E Pradesh as it has set aside the judgment and decree of divorce
granted in favour of the appellant-husband dissolving the
marriage between the appellant and respondent by dismissing
the Original Petition No. 203 of 2000 filed by the appellant for
dissolution of their marriage under Section 13 (1 )(iii) of the
F Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') and allowing the
Original Petition No. 1 of 1999 filed by the respondent-wife
against the appellant by granting restitution of conjugal rights
urging various facts and legal contentions.
3. The factual and rival legal contentions urged on behalf
G of the parties are adverted to in this judgment with a view to
examine the tenability of the appellant's submissions. The
relevant facts are stated as hereunder:
The marriage between the appellant and the respondent
H was solemnized on 31.05.1995 at Kakinada (Andhra Pradesh)
KOLLAM CHANDRA SEKHAR v. KOLLAM PADMA 193
LATHA (V. µOPALA GOWDA, J,]
as per Hindu rites and customs and their marriage was A
consummated. It is the case of the appellant that at the time of
marriage, he was working as Senior Resident at the All India
Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi. After marriage, the
respondent-wife joined the appellant at New Delhi and secured
employment in the said Institute. B
4. It is the case of both the parties that when they were
living at New Delhi, the brother of the appellant died in an
accident. At that point of time, the appellant herein came to
Yanam (Andhra Pradesh) leaving the respondent at Delhi, who C
gave birth to a female child on 07.07.1997.
It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the
appellant, Mr.Jaideep Gupta, in the pleadings that dispute arose
between the appellant and his parents on the one hand and the
in-laws of the deceased brother of the appellant on the other. D
There were threats to kill the appellant. During that period,
respondent's father stayed in the company of the appellant and
his parents at Yanam. At that time, both the appellant and the
respondent suffered tensions and they were restless on
account of the situation created by the in-laws of the appellant's E
deceased brother. Both of them received medical treatment
and due to depression, appellant submitted his resignation and
the respondent also resigned from her job at AllMS. The
appellant then joined as Assistant Professor in Gandhi Hospital
at Secunderabad. The respondent and the child also joined him F
at Hyderabad. It is their further case that while they were in
Hyderabad, the appellant used to receive threatening calls from
the in-laws of his deceased brother which used to create
tension in their family. The respondent was treated for
hypothyroidism problem.
G
5. In the counter statement filed by the respondent, she
contended that after one year of their marriage, the appellant
and his parents started harassing her by demanding colour
television, refrigerator etc. In May 1998, after the death of the
father of the respondent, the appellant went on insisting that the H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 11 S.C.R.
A respondent gets the house situated at Rajahmundry registered
in his name and when she refused, he started to torture her.
The respondent applied for post-graduate. entrance
examination, which was scheduled to be held on 13.08.1998,
and the appellant was making arrangements to go to Madras
B on 12.08.1998 in connection with FRCS admission. On
11.08.1998, the appellant picked up a quarrel with the
respondent insisting that she must get the house at
Rajahmundry registered in his name to which she did not
agree. The respondent also requested him not to go to Madras
c as she has to appear for the Post-Graduate entrance
examination on 13.08.1998 for which the respondent alleged
that the appellant badly tortured her both physically and mentally.
A telegram was sent to her mother with false allegations of her
mental illness with a view to create e\/idence as he could have
D as well conveyed the message through telephone as there was
telephone facility at the house of her parents. As the appellant
was preparing to appear for FRCS examination and would
spend most of his time in the libraries and the respondent and
their child would be left alone without help, he suggested that
E the appellant should go to Rajahmundry and stay with her
parents to which she agreed and went to Rajahmundry and
joined Chaitanya Nursing Home and Bhavani Nursing Home to
work as a doctor. In the second week of November, 1998, the
appellant came to Rajahmundry and asked the respondent to
go to Yanam and stay with his parents saying that she can have
F the company of his parents and she can carry on the medical
profession along with his father who was also a doctor to which
she agreed. Thereafter, the appellant got issued a notice dated
25.11.1998 to the respondent making certain false allegations
saying that she was suffering from schizophrenia and she had
G suicidal tendencies etc., with the object of marrying again for
fat dowry. The respondent has denied that she suffered from
schizophrenia or suicidal tendencies and further stated that
during her delivery days and subsequently on account of the
threats received from in-laws of the appellant's deceased
H brother, there was some depression for which the respondent
KOLLAM CHANDRA SEKHAR v. KOLLAM PADMA 195
LATHA [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
was treated and the appellant never allowed her to go through A
the prescriptions of her treatment at anytime and she was also
not allowed to see the medicines given to her as part of
treatment for her depression. It is stated by her that she believes
that as part of the ill motive of the appellant, he might have
administered some medicines to build up a false case against B
her with a view to file petition for dissolution of marriage. The
respondent got issued a reply notice to the lawyer of the
appellant mentioning the above facts on 18.12.1998.
6. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel for
the respondent, Mr. Pallav Sisodia, that the appellant never C
cared for her and encouraged his parents to dislodge her from
the family house. She filed O.S. No.53 of 1998 on the file of
District Munsifs Court, Yanam for permanent injunction against
the parents of the appellant and filed Interlocutory Application
No. 237 of 1998 for temporary injunction against them not to D
evict her from the residential house where she was staying. It
is further stated that the appellant has no right to withdraw from
her society and demand for divorce and that she is entitled for
restitution of conjugal rights. It is contended by the respondent
that the impugned judgment is a well-considered judgment both E
on facts and in law and the Division Bench of the High Court
rightly allowed the appeals filed by the respondent refusing to
grant a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant and granting
a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the
respondent. Therefore, the respondent has prayed for dismissal F
of the petition filed by the appellant praying for grant of decree
of divorce against her.
7. The appellant filed the counter statement to the petition
for restitution of conjugal rights denying the allegations made G
in the petition. He contended that the behaviour of the
respondent even when they were staying at New Delhi was
marked by emotional disturbances and she also received
treatment from a psychiatrist there. He has further stated that
he underwent severe mental stress due to irrational behavioural
H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 11 S.C.R.
A pattern of the respondent. Her erratic behaviour started
increasing as time passed by. She started manifesting
symptoms of schizophrenia like violent or aggressive behaviour
and a tendency to be harsh and hostile towards other members
of the family without any reason whatsoever which were not
B visible earlier. For that reason, she was kept with her parents'
family so that she can develop a sense of security which is
required for patients suffering from schizophrenia. He has
further stated that she also started developing the symptoms
like sudden withdrawal and being silent for long periods without
c any communication.
8. Further, he has stated that after the death of his brother,
he brought his wife and child to Hyderabad where he had
secured a job as Assistant Professor of Orthopaedics in
Gandhi Medical College. He further contended that on account
D of the death of his brother, tension developed in his family and
that neither he nor his family members harassed the respondent
demanding goods etc. He also stated that at the time of
marriage, mental status of the respondent was not known to him.
Further, the respondent tried to evict his parents from their
E house at Yanam and when she failed in her attempt, she filed
O.S. No. 53 of 1998 at District Munsifs Court, Yanam which
shows her erratic attitude towards the parents of the appellant.
9. The respondent fell seriously ill due to which the
F appellant sent her mother a telegram to come and take care
of her. She went to live with her mother at Rajahmundry as she
consulted some psychiatrists who advised her to live with her
mother. The appellant visited her after two weeks and found that
her mental condition had aggravated to such a point that it would
be impossible for him to live with her as her husband. He
G contended that she was showing all the classical symptoms of
schizophrenia including violence, psychotic behaviour, suicidal
tendencies, withdrawal symptoms and abnormal and irrational
behaviour including in the matter of her speech and her
conversation. She also used to say that she would like to
H
KOLLAM CHANDRA SEKHAR v. KOLLAM PADMA 197
LATHA [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
commit suicide and he was, thus,,worried abo.ut her and the A
child. The respondent was continuously on psychiatric treatment.
The above facts were narrated by the appellant in his divorce
petition filed before the trial court. He has further contended that
under the circumstances narrated above, it was impossible for
him to resume cohabitation with the respondent as he was B
afraid of danger to his life and that of his daughter and therefore,
he requested the Court for grant of a decree of divorce and that
the respondent's petition for restitution of conjugal rights be
dismissed as she is not entitled to the relief prayed for by her.
10. The learned trial Judge in his judgment held that the C
appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce if not annulment of
marriage and that since the disease of the respondent was not
disclosed to the appellant before marriage, she is not entitled
to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. As a result, O.P. 1/
99 filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights was D
dismissed and O.P.203/2000 filed by the appellant for grant of
divorce was allowed by dissolving the marriage between the
appellant and the respondent and decree of divorce was
granted. '
E
11. The trial court relied on the certified copy of report from
Institute of Mental Health, Government Hospital for Mental Care,
Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, bearing No. A and D/402/
99 submitted to the Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad, marked as Exh. 8-10, given as per F
procedure and by conducting chemical examination etc. It is
stated that the report clearly showed that the respondent is
suffering from schizophrenia. The trial court relied on the case
of Tarlochan Singh Vs. Ji't Kaur, 1 where it was held that since
the fact of the wife being a patient of schizophrenia was not G
disclosed to the husband before marriage, it would amount to
matrimonial fraud and therefore it was held the husband was
entitled to decree of divorce if not annulment of marriage.
1. AIR 1986 P & H 379. H
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 11 S.C.R.
A 12. Being aggrieved by the common judgment and decree
of the trial court passed in 0.P. Nos. 1/99 and 20312000 the
respondent filed appeals before the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh questioning the correctness of the same urging
various grounds. The High Court on re-appreciation of
B pleadings and evidence held that there is no positive evidence
to show that the respondent has suffered schizophrenia and
even in the case that she suffered from schizophrenia, it cannot
be said that she was suffering from such a serious form of the
disease that it would attract the requirements of Section 13 (1)
c (iii) of the Act for grant of decree for dissolution of marriage
between the parties.
13. On perusal of the facts and legal evidence on record
and hearing rival legal contentions urged by both the parties,
the points that would arise for consideratipn of this Court are:
D
(1) Whether the respondent is suffering from a serious
mental disorder i.e. schizophrenia or incurable
unsoundness of mind, and can this be considered
as a ground for divorce under Section 13 (1) (iii)
E of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
(2) Whether the High Court has correctly re-
appreciated the facts pleaded and evidence on
record while dismissing the divorce petition of the
appellant and allowing the petition for restitutjon of
F conjugal rights of the respondent?
(3) Whether the appeal filed by the appellant has to be
allowed and we must restore the judgment and
decree of trial court and dismiss the petition for
G conjugal rights filed by the respondent?
(4) What order?
14. Answer to point nos.1 to 3:
H These points are answered together as they are
KOLLAM CHANDRA SEKHAR v. KOLLAM PADMA 199
LATHA [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
interrelated. On careful scrutiny of the pleadings and evidence A
on record and the decision of this Court referred to above, the
provision of Section 13(1) (iii) of the Act is interpreted and the
meanings of 'unsound mind' and 'mental disorder' as occurring
in the above provisions of the Act are examined and referred
to in the impugned judgment. The High Court, while examining B
the correctness of the findings recorded in the common
judgment of the trial court, has placed reliance on Ram Narain
Gupta vs. Rameshwari Gupta, 2 wherein this Court has
interpreted the provision of Section 13(1 )(iii) of the Act and laid
down the law regarding mental disorder or unsound mind as a c
ground available to a party to get dissolution of the marriage.
The relevant portions with regard to 'unsoundness of mind' and
'mental disorder' from the case referred to supra are extracted
hereunder:
"20.The context in which the ideas of unsoundness D
of "mind" and "mental disorder'' occur in the Section as
grounds 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 E
abnormalities are not recognised as. grounds for grant of
decree. If the mere existence of any degree of mental
abnormality could justify dissolution of a marriage few
marriages would, indeed, survive in law.
F
21. The answer to the apparently simple - and
perhaps misleading - question as to "who is normal?"
runs inevitably into philosophical thickets of the concept of
mental normalcy and as involved therein, of the 'mind'
itself. These concepts of "mind", "mental phenomena" etc.,
are more known than understood and the theories of "mind" G'
and "mentation" do not indicate any internal consistency,
let alone validity, of their basic ideas. Theories of "mind"
with cognate ideas of "perception" and "consciousness"
2. (1988) s sec 247. H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 11 S.C.R.
A encompass a wide range of thoughts, more ontolopical
than enistemological. Theories of mental phenomena are
diverse and include the dualist concept - shared by
Descartes and Sigmund Freud - of the separateness of
the existence of the physical or the material world as
8 distinguished from the non-material mental world with its
existence only spatially and not temporally. There is, again,
the theory which stresses the neurological basis of the
"mental phenomenon" by asserting the functional
correlation of the neuronal arrangements of the brain with
c mental phenomena. The "behaviourist" tradition, on the
other hand, interprets all reference to mind as "constructs"
out of behaviour. "Functionalism", however, seems to
assert that mind is the logical or functional state of physical
systems. But all theories seem to recognise, in varying
degrees, that the psychometric control over the mind
D
operates at a level not yet fully taught to science. When a
person is oppressed by intense and seemingly insoluble
moral dilemmas, or when grief of loss of dear ones etch
away all the bright colours of life, or where a broken
marriage brings with it the loss of emotional security, what
E standards of normalcy of behaviour could be formulated
and applied? The arcane infallibility of science has not fully
pervaded the study of the non-material dimensions of
"being".
F 22. Speaking of the indisposition of science towards
this study, a learned Author says:
"... we have inherited cultural resistance to treating the
conscious mind as a biological phenomenon like any
other. This goes back to Descartes in the seventeenth
G
century. Descartes divided the world into two kinds of
substances: mental substances and physical substances.
Physical substances were the proper domain of science
and mental substances were the property of religion.
Something of an acceptance of this division exists even
H
.{
KOLLAM CHANDRA $EKHAR v. KOLLAM PADMA 201
LATHA [V. GbPALA
I
GOWDA, J.]
to the present day. So, for example, consciousness and A
subjectivity are often regarded as unsuitable topics for
science. And this reluctance to deal with consciousness
and subjectivity is part of a persistent objectifying tendency.
People think science must be about objectively observable
phenomena. On; occasions when I have lectured to B
audiences of bioJogists and neurophysiologists, I have
found many of them very reluctant to treat the mind in
general and co~sciousness in particular as a proper
domain of scientific investigation. ·.
... the use of the noun "mind" is dangerously inhabited by
c
the ghosts of old philosophical theories. It is very difficult
to resist the idea that the mind is a kind of a thing, or at
least an arena, or at least some kind of black box in which
all of these mental processes occur.
D
23. Lord Wilberforce, referring to the psychological
basis of physical illness said that the area of ignorance of
the body-mind relation seems to expand with that of
knowledge. In McLaughlin v. O' Brian, the learned Lord
said, though in a different context: (All ER p. 301) E
"Whatever is unknown about the mind-body relationship
(and the area of ignorance seems to expand with'that of
knowledge), it is now accepted by medical science that
recognisable and severe physical damage to the human
F
body and system may be caused by the impact, through
the senses, of external events on the mind. There may thus
be produced what is as identifiable an illness as any that
may be caused by direct physical impact. It is safe to say
that this, in general terms, is understood by the ordinary
man or woman who is hypothesised by the courts ... " G
24. But the illnesses that are called "mental" are kept
distinguished from those that ail the "body" in· a
fundamental way. In "Philosophy and Medicine", Vol. 5 at
H
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A page X the learned Editor refers to what distinguishes the
...Jwo qualitatively:
"Undoubtedly, mental illness is so disvalued because it
strikes at the very roots of our personhood. It visits us with
uncontrollable fears, obsessions, compulsions, and
B
anxieties ....
. . . This is captured in part by the language we use in
describing the mentally ill. One is an hysteric, is a neurotic,
is an obsessive, is a schizophrenic, is a manic-
c depressive. On the other hand, one has heart disease, has
cancer, has the flu, has malaria, has smallpox ... "
The principle laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case with
all fours is applicable to the fact situation on hand wherein this
0 Court has rightly referred to Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Act and
explanation to the said clause and made certain pertinent
observations regarding "unsound mind" or "mental disorder"
and the application of the same as grounds for dissolution of
marriage. This Court cautioned that Section 13 (1) (iii) of the
E Act does not make a mere existence of a mental disorder of
any degree sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of marriage.
The High Court in the present case stated that a husband
cannot simply abandon his wife because she is suffering from
. sickness and relied on the evidence of RW-2, Dr. Krishna
F Murthy, Superintendent, Institute of Mental Health, Hyderabad,
wherein it is stated by him that schizophrenia can be put on par
with diseases like hypertension and diabetes on the question
of treatability meaning that constant medication is required in
which event the disease would be under control. The High Court
also relied on the evidence of PW-4, Dr. Ravi S. Pandey,
G Professor and Head of Department of Psychiatry at NIMHANS,
Bangalore, who had examined the respondent and stated that
the team could not find any evidence suggesting that she has
been suffering from schizophrenia at the time of examining her
and also stated in his cross-examination that no treatment
H includin~ drugs were given to her at NIMHANS as they did not
KOLLAM CHANDRA SEKHAR v. KOLLAM PADMA 203
LATHA [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
find any abnormality in her behaviour. He also stated that it is A
true that psychiatrically there is no contra-indication in leading
a normal conjugal life. Thus, they gave her a certificate, which
is marked as Exh. B-11, based on clinical examination and in
the absence of any abnormal behaviour including psychiatric
features in the past history of respondent. The High Court has B
not accepted the finding of fact recorded ~y the trial court on
the contentious issue and further stated tnat "schizophrenia"
does not appear to be such a dangerous disease and it can
be controlled by drugs and in the present case, this finding is
supported by evidence of RW-2, who has stated in his c
examination-in-chief that the appellant herein has not made any
reference to any of the acts of the respondent that can constitute
"schizophrenia" ailment. It is further held by the High Court that
there is no positive evidence to show that the respondent has
suffered from schizophrenia and even in the case she has D
suffered from some form of schizophrenia, it cannot be said that
she was suffering from such a serious form of the disease that
would attract the requirement as provided under Section 13 (1)
(iii) of the Act and that it is of such a nature that it would make
life of the appellant so miserable that he cannot lead a marital
life with her. E
15. We are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly
examined the entire evidence on record and correctly found fault
with the findings of fact recorded by the trial court with regard
to the ailment attributed to the respondent for seeking F
dissolution of marriage under the ground of 'unsound mind'
which is a non-existent fact. In the case of Vinita Saxena v.
Pankaj Pandit, 3 this Court has examined in detail the issue of
schizophrenia wherein the facts are different and the facts and
evidence on record are not similar to the case on hand. G
Therefore, the observations made in the judgment for grant of
decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) {ia) and
Section 13(1) (iii) of the Act cannot be applied to the fact
3. (2006) 3 sec ns. H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A situation of the case on hand. But, we would like to examine
what was said in that case on the issue of this disease,
schizophrenia -:
"What is the disease and what one should know?
.B *A psychotic lacks insight, has the whole of his personality
distorted by illness, and constructs a false environment out
of his subjective experiences.
*It is customary to define 'delusion' more or less in the
c following way. A delusion is a false unshakeable belief,
which is out of keeping with the patient's social and cultural
background. German psychiatrists tend to stress the
morbid origin of the delusion, and quite rightly so. A
delusion is the product of internal morbid processes and
D this is what makes it unamenable to external influences.
*Apophanous experiences which occur in acute
schizophrenia and form the basis of delusions of
persecution, but these delusions are also the result of
auditory hallucinations, bodily hallucinations and
E experiences of passivity. Delusions of persecution can
take many forms. In delusions of reference, the patient
feels that people are talking about him, slandering him or
spying on him. It may be difficult to be certain ifthe patient
has delusions of self-reference or if he has self-reference
F hallucinosis. Ideas of delusions or reference are not
confined to schizophrenia, but can occur in depressive
illness and psychogenic reactions. ·
Causes
G The causes of schizophrenia are still under debate. A
chemical imbalance in the brain seems to play a role, but
the reason for the imbalance remains unclear. One is a bit
more likely to become schizophrenic if he has a family
member with the illness. Stress does not cause
H schizophrenia, but can make the symptoms worse.
KOLLAM CHANDRA SEKHAR v. KOLLAM PADMA 205
LATHA [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
Risks A
Without medication and therapy, most paranoid
schizophrenics are unable to function in the real world. If
they fall victim to severe hallucinations and delusions, they
can be a danger to themselves and those around them. 8
What is schizophrenia?
Schizophrenia is a chronic, disabling mental illness
characterised by:
*Psychotic symptoms c
*Disordered thinking
*Emotional blunting
How does schizophrenia develop?
Schizophrenia generally develops in late adolescence or D
early adulthood, most often:
*In the late teens or early twenties in men
*In the twenties to early thirties in women
What are the symptoms of schizophrenia? E
Although schizophrenia is chronic, symptoms may improve
at times (periods of remission) and worsen at other times
(acute episodes, or period of relapse).
Initial symptoms appear gradually and can include: F
*Feeling tense
*Difficulty in concentrating
*Difficulty in sleeping
*Social withdrawal
G
What are psychotic symptoms?
*Psychotic symptoms include:
*Hallucinations: hearing voices or seeing things.
*Delusions: bizarre beliefs with no basis in reality (for
H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A example delusions of persecution or delusions of
grandeur).
These symptoms occur during acute or psychotic phases of the
illness, but may improve during periods of remission.
B A patient may experience:
*A single psychotic episode during the course of the illness
*Multiple psychotic episodes over a lifetime .. ."
16. As per evidence of RW-2, schizophrenia is a treatable,
C manageable disease, which can be put on par with
hypertension and diabetes. So also, PW-4, who had examined
the respondent at NIMHANS, Bangalore stated that the team
could not find any evidence suggesting schizophrenia at the
time of their examining the respondent and he had stated in
his cross-examination that no treatment including drugs was
0 given to her at NIMHANS as they did not find any abnormality
in her. They thus gave her a certificate of normal mental status,
based on the absence of any abnormal findings in her medical
.report including psychiatric features in the past history and
normal psychological test. We have carefully perused the
E Report marked as Exh. B-10 dated 24.4.1999 given by the
Doctors of Institute of Mental l;ealth, Hyderabad before the trial
court. The learned trial Judge has misread the contents of the
said report and also wrongly interpreted the same and recorded
the finding that the respondent is suffering from the ailment of
F 'schizophrenia' and therefore he has accepted the case of the
appellant who has made out a ground under Section 13(1) (iii)
of the Act wherein it is stated that a spouse suffering from
schizophrenia or incurably unsound mind is a ground for
dissolution of the marriage between the parties.
G
17. The High Court has thus rightly set aside the decree
of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the appellant and
dismissed his petition and granted a decree of restitution of
conjugal rights in favour of the respondent by allowing her
H petition. The High Court has recorded the finding of fact on re-
KOLLAM CHANDRA SEKHAR v. KOLLAM PADMA 207
LATHA [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
appreciation of material evidence on record and has rightly held A
that the trial court has erroneously come to the conclusion that
the respondent was suffering from schizophrenia by relying on
the evidence of PW-1, who is the appellant herein and as per
the opinion given by the Committee of Doctors in Ex.B-10. In
the deposition by witness RW-2, Dr. K.Krishna Murthy, he has B
stated in his examination-in-chief that Schizophrenia has
become eminently treatable with the advent of many new
psychiatric drugs. He further stated that many patients with
schizophrenia are able to lead a near norn;ial life with
medication. The trial court has erroneously relied on certain c
cases referred to and applied the principle laid down in those
cases to the facts of this case even though they are not
applicable to the case on hand either on facts or in law as the
appellant has not proved the allegations made in the petition
against the respondent by adducing positive and substantive D
evidence on record to substantiate the same and that the
alleged ailment of the respondent would fall within the provision
of Section 13(1 )(iii) of the Act. Therefore, he has not made out
a case for grant of decree for dissolution of marriage. We have
carefully examined Ex. Nos. X-6 to X-11, which are the
prescriptions of medicine prescribed to her by Dr. Mallikarjuna E
Rao, Dr. Pramod Kumar and Dr.M.Kumari Devi. The above
prescriptions mention the symptoms of the ailment of the
respondent, which were in the nature of delusions, suspicious
apprehensions and fears, altered behaviours, suicidal tendency
and past history of depression. Reliance is placed by PW 1 F
on the above documentary evidence to prove that the
respondent was suffering from the mental disorder of
schizophrenia and therefore it squarely falls within the provision
of Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act for grant of decree of dissolution
of marriage in his favour. The High Court has rightly held that G
the trial court has erroneously accepted the same and recorded
its finding of fact on the contentious issues to pass decree of
divorce in favour of the appellant, which is contrary to the
decision of this Court in the case of Ram Narain Gupta vs.
Rameshwari Gupta supra. The same decision has been relied H
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A upon by the respondent before the High Court, wherein the said
decision was correctly accepted by it to set aside the
erroneous finding of fact recorded by the trial court on the
contentious issue.
18. The legal question that arises for our consideration is
8
whether the marriage between the parties can be dissolved by
granting a decree of divorce on the basis of one spouse's
mental illness which includes schizophrenia under Section 13
(1) (iii) of the Act. In the English case of Whysal/ v. Whysa/1, 4
it was held that a spouse is 'incurably of unsound mind' if he
C 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
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, in Pramatha Kumar Maity
v Ashima Maity5 has held that mental disorder of the wife, even
D if proved, cannot, by itself, warrant a decree of divorce and it
must be further proved that it is of such a nature as the husband
could not be expected to live with the wife. The Allahabad High
Court, in Mt. Ti/ti Vs. Alfred Rebert Jones6 has held that where
it has come on record that the wife has improved her
E educational qualifications and has been looking after her
children, the apprehension of the husband that there is danger
to his life or to his children is not borne out is the finding
recorded in the said case. Inability to manage his or her affairs
is an essential attribute of an "incurably unsound mind". The
F facts pleaded and the evidence placed on record produced by
the appellant in this case does not establish such inability as a
ground on which dissolution of marriage was sought for by him
before the trial court.
19. The High Court has rightly set aside the said finding
G and allowed the appeal of the respondent after careful scrutiny
4. (1959) 3 All ER 389.
5. AIR 1991 Cal 123.
H 6. AIR 1934 All 273.
KOLLAM CHANDRA SEKHAR v. KOLLAM PADMA 209
LATHA [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
of Exh.B-10. The correctness of the finding of the High Court A
in the impugned judgment is seriously challenged by the
learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant in this appeal.
We have examined this contention, after careful perusal of the
contents of Exh.B-10. In our considered view, the contents of
the report as stated by the team of doctors do not support the B
case of the appellant that the respondent is suffering from a
serious case of schizophrenia, in order to grant the decree of
divorce under Section 13(1) (iii) of the Act. The report states
that the respondent, although suffering from 'illness of
schizophrenic type', does not show symptoms of psychotic c
illness at present and has responded well to the treatment from
· the acute phases and her symptoms are fairly under control with
the medication which had been administered to her. It was
further stated that if there is good compliance with treatment
coupled·with good social and family support, a schizophrenic
0
patient can continue their marital relationship. In view of the
aforesaid findings and reasons recorded, we have to hold that
the patient is not suffering from the symptoms of schizophrenia
as detailed above.
20. We are of the view that the High Court in exercise of E
its appellate jurisdiction has rightly come to a different conclusion
that the respondent is not suffering from the ailment of
schizophrenia or incurable unsoundness of mind. Further, the
High Court has rightly rejected the finding of the trial court which
is based on exh.B-10 and other documentary and oral evidence F
by applying the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Ram
Narain Gupta vs. Rameshwari Gupta referred to supra. A
pertinent point to be taken into consideration is that the
respondent had not only completed MBBS but also did a post
graduate diploma in Medicine and was continuously working G
as a Government Medical Officer and had she been suffering
from any serious kind of mental disorder, particularly, acute type
of schizophrenia, it would have been impossible for her to work
in the said post. The appellant-husband cannot simply abandon
his wife because she is suffering from sickness. Therefore, the H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 11 S.C.R.
A High Court allowed both the CMAs and dismissed O.P. No.
203/2000 filed by the appellant for divorce and allowed O.P.
No.1 /99 filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights
wherein the High Court granted decree of restitution of conjugal
rights in favour of the respondent.
B
21. It is thus clear that the respondent, even if she did suffer
from schizophrenia, is in a much better health condition at
present. Therefore, this Court cannot grant the dissolution of
marriage on the basis of one spouse's illness. The appellant
C has not proved the fact of mental disorder of the respondent
with reference to the allegation made against her that she has
been suffering from schizophrenia by producing positive and
substantive evidence on record and on the other hand, it has
been proved that the respondent is in much better health
condition and does not show signs of schizophrenia as per the
D most recent medical report from NIMHANS, as deposed by
PW-4 in his evidence before the trial court. ·
22. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the firm view that
the findings and reasons recorded in setting aside the judgment
E and decree of the trial court is neither erroneous nor does it
suffer from error in law which warrants our interference and calls
for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree of the first
appellate court. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the
impugned judgment of the High Court as the same is well-
F reasoned and based on cogent reasoning of facts and evidence
on record and accordingly, we answer point no.4 in favour of
the respondent.
23. Under Hindu law, marriage is an institution, a meeting
of two hearts and minds and is something that cannot. be taken
G lightly. In the Vedic period, the sacredness of the marriage tie
was repeatedly declared; the family ideal was decidedly high
and it was often realised 7 • In Vedic Index I it is stated that "The
7. Vedic Index, I, 484, 485; CHl,l,89 as in Ranganath Misra J. Revised., Mayne's
Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage, Fifteenth Edition, 2003, Bharat law
H House at p.97.
KOLLAM CHANDRASEKHAR v. KOLLAM PADMA 211
LATHA [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
high value placed on the marriage is shown by the long and A
striking hymn". In Rig Veda, X, 85; "Be, thou, mother of heroic
children, devoted to the Gods, Be, thou, Queen in thy father-in-
law's household. May all the Gods unite the hearts of us "two
into one" as stated in Justice Ranganath Misra's 'Mayne's
Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage' 8 • Marriage is highly revered B
in India and we are a Nation that prides itself on the strong
foundation of our marriages, come hell or high water, rain or
sunshine. Life is made up of good times and bad, and the bad
times can bring with it terrible illnesses and extreme hardships.
The partners in a marriage must weather these storms and C
embrace the sunshine with equanimity. Any person may have
bad health, this is not their fault and most times, it is not within
their control, as in the present case, the respondent was unwell
and was taking treatment for the same. The illness had its fair
share bf problems. Can this be a reason for the appellant to aband
n her and seek dissolution of marriage after the child is born D
out of their union? Since the child is now a grown up girl, her
welfare must be the prime consideration for both the parties.
In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the
two parties in this case must reconcile and if the appellant so
feels that the respondent is still suffering, then she must be given E
the right treatment. The respondent must stick to her treatment
plan and make the best attempts to get better. It is not in the
best interest of either the respondent or her daughter who is
said to be of adolescent age for grant of a decree of dissolution
of marriage as prayed for by the appellant. Hence, the appeal F
is liable to be dismissed.
24. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and uphold the
judgment of the High Court in not granting a decree of divorce
and allowing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. G
Therefore, we grant a decree for restitution of conjugal rights
under Section 9 of the Act in favour of the respondent.
B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.
8. Fifteenth Edition, 2003, Bharat Law House at p.97. H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "divorce"Sign in to search