The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a mental disorder, without sufficient proof of its severity and impact on marital cohabitation, does not justify the dissolution of a marriage under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The decision, delivered on October 24, 2024, by a Division Bench comprising Justice Om Prakash Shukla and Justice Rajan Roy, addressed the nuanced interpretation of mental illness as a ground for divorce.
The judgment came in First Appeal No. 174 of 2023, filed by a husband challenging a Family Court’s dismissal of his divorce petition. He sought divorce on grounds of cruelty, desertion, and the wife’s alleged schizophrenia.
Background of the Case
The appellant and respondent were married on June 8, 2003, following Hindu rites. The husband alleged that the wife was suffering from schizophrenia, a fact purportedly concealed before marriage. He further claimed that her mental condition and behavior rendered cohabitation impossible, citing incidents of aggression and neglect. He sought divorce based on mental illness, desertion, and mental cruelty.
The wife refuted the allegations, asserting that she had no mental illness and was willing to fulfill her marital obligations. She accused the husband and his family of dowry harassment and argued that the claims of mental illness were fabricated to justify the divorce.
The Principal Judge, Family Court-II, Pratapgarh, dismissed the husband’s divorce plea on April 29, 2023, prompting the appeal to the High Court.
Key Legal Issues
1. Mental Disorder: Whether the alleged schizophrenia of the wife met the legal threshold under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, requiring proof of severity and its impact on cohabitation.
2. Desertion: Whether the wife’s prolonged absence from the matrimonial home constituted intentional abandonment.
3. Cruelty: Whether the wife’s conduct caused mental anguish, amounting to cruelty.
Court’s Observations
The High Court carefully analyzed the evidence and applicable legal precedents, emphasizing the burden of proof required to establish mental disorder as a valid ground for divorce.
On Mental Disorder:
The court clarified that under Section 13(1)(iii), the mere existence of a mental disorder is insufficient to warrant a divorce. The disorder must be of such severity that it renders cohabitation unreasonable. The court cited Kollam Chandra Sekhar v. Kollam Padma Latha [(2014) 1 SCC 225] and other precedents, reiterating that medical evidence is critical to prove the extent and impact of the disorder.
The bench stated:
“Section 13(1)(iii) does not make the mere existence of a mental disorder sufficient to justify dissolution of marriage. The disorder must be of such a kind and degree that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.”
In this case, while the appellant provided medical prescriptions indicating treatment for schizophrenia, there was no evidence proving the severity of the condition or its impact on the wife’s ability to maintain a marital relationship. The court concluded that the allegations of mental illness did not meet the legal standard.
On Desertion:
The court observed that the couple had been living separately for over a decade, and the wife had shown no interest in returning to the matrimonial home or contesting the appeal. This indicated animus deserendi (intent to abandon), which constitutes desertion under the law.
The judgment noted:
“The prolonged separation and lack of effort by the respondent to reconcile demonstrate an intentional abandonment of the marital relationship.”
On Cruelty:
The court found that the wife’s prolonged absence and her accusations of dowry harassment, combined with her refusal to cohabit, caused mental anguish to the husband, amounting to cruelty. Citing Rakesh Raman v. Kavita [2023 SCC OnLine SC 497], the court held that cruelty encompasses conduct causing mental agony and emotional distress.
The court overturned the Family Court’s decision and granted the appellant a divorce. While rejecting the claim of mental illness due to insufficient evidence, the court found merit in the allegations of desertion and cruelty. It dissolved the marriage, holding that the prolonged separation and the respondent’s conduct rendered the matrimonial bond irretrievably broken.
The appellant was represented by Ms. Bhavini Upadhyay, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, and Ms. Sandhya Dubey, while the respondent did not appear, leading to an ex-parte hearing.
