In this case, the petitioner (husband) instituted a plaint against the respondent (his wife) under Section 13(1)(i-a) and Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to obtain a decree of divorce mainly on the ground that the wife had threatened to commit suicide and her behaviour was abnormal, leading to a breakdown in their marriage due to mental torture and cruelty suffered by the husband. The second ground raised by the husband was that the wife was suffering from fits of epilepsy which was an incurable disease leading to her being of unsound mind, and further, the mental disorder was of such a kind that the husband could not be expected to live with his wife.
The wife filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights, claiming that the allegations made by her husband of her suffering from an incurable mental disorder, by virtue of which he could not live with her, were false and made up, whereas in reality, the wife had been driven out of the husband’s home on this excuse, even though she desired to live together. She claimed maintenance at Rs 15,000 per month for herself and Rs 5,000 per month for her daughter, claiming that her husband was earning a gross salary of Rs 41,753 per month as a Shunting Driver in the Central Railways. The wife further pleaded that she was under treatment of a neurologist since she lost consciousness twice and it was diagnosed as being a seizure, which was not an incurable mental disorder or disability which would incapacitate her.
In a counter to the husband’s petition, the wife categorically denied both the grounds shown by her husband, and specifically pleaded that she had informed her husband about suffering from a seizure prior to their marriage, and after their marriage, during her pregnancy, she was diagnosed, both by a neurologist and radiologist of having suffered from a seizure with no mental disorder which caused incurable unsoundness of mind so that the husband would not be in a position to reside with her. Consequently, the family court dismissed her husband’s suit for divorce and allowed her petition for restitution of conjugal rights with maintenance to be paid by the husband.
The Division Bench of Justices Vinay Joshi and Valmiki SA Menezes of the Bombay High Court said that the husband claimed that his wife regularly suffered from attacks of epilepsy, which according to him, created an unsound state of mind for her. The Court further said that epilepsy was also a mental disorder, which even though was treated in this case, continued to cause mental imbalance and abnormal behaviour in her. The Court stated that medical evidence determines that every person suffering from epilepsy can lead a normal life. Two facts are clear from the evidence—the first that the wife only suffered from a brain seizure and not from epilepsy. The second fact as deposed by an expert, a neurologist by profession, was that epilepsy itself is a medical condition in which a person suffering from it can lead a normal life. Thus clearly, even assuming the wife was suffering from epilepsy, this was certainly not a mental disorder or a psychopathic disorder, or for that matter, can be considered as leaving the wife incurably of unsound mind.
The Court observed that, for the sake of argument, even if the bench assumes that the wife was suffering from epilepsy (which the medical evidence suggests she was not), the question arises as to whether epilepsy, even if considered a disease or mental disorder, could be claimed as a ground for divorce has been dealt with by a single judge of the Court in Raghunath Gopal Daftardar vs Sau, Vijaya Raghunath Daftardar (1972). In that case, the husband alleged that the wife did not disclose before their marriage that she was suffering from epilepsy, which according to the husband was an incurable disease The husband in that case claimed a decree of nullity of marriage on ground of fraud and in the alternative for a decree for judicial separation on grounds of cruelty.
At this juncture, the Court noted that though Raghunath Gopal Daftardar (supra) was rendered in a matter claiming a decree of nullity on grounds of fraud, mainly that the wife was suffering from epilepsy, which was claimed to be an incurable disease, as on the date of passing of that judgment, the grounds contained in Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act were not available in their present form. The provisions of Section 13(1)(iii) were amended with effect from May 27, 1976, after Raghunath Gopal Daftardar (supra) was rendered, allowing for claiming of decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of unsoundness of mind or mental disorder.
However, the Court found no difficulty in applying the reasoning laid down in Raghunath Gopal Daftardar (the petitioner) It said: “We, with the greatest respect, approve of, in holding that the condition of ‘epilepsy’ is neither an incurable disease nor can it be considered a mental disorder or a psychopathic disorder, for making a ground under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.” The Court opined that there is an abundance of medical evidence, as of this date, that such a medical condition could not justify any husband’s stand that the condition would be an impediment to the spouses living together. On that count, the Court held that the husband failed to prove that the wife was suffering from epilepsy, or even if she were suffering from such a condition, the same could be considered as a ground under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act for claiming a decree of dissolution of marriage.
The Court observed that the other ground on the basis of which the husband claimed relief in the suit was that the wife’s behaviour due to her mental condition of suffering from epileptic fits was causing him cruelty. This ground appears to be intrinsically connected with the plea that the wife was suffering from a mental disorder. Having not proved the ground of epilepsy, the bench said that “in our considered opinion holding that the husband was subjected to cruelty or mental torture due to the wife’s mental condition would be totally without any basis. There is no evidence whatsoever led by the petitioner to substantiate this ground.”
In 2013, the Supreme Court while upbraiding the spouses for seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of another spouse’s mental illness like schizophrenia had said that only the incurable mental illness can be a ground for dissolution of marriage between parties. The top court observed that the husband had not proved the fact of mental disorder of the wife with reference to the allegation made against her that she was suffering from schizophrenia by producing positive and substantive evidence on record, while on the other hand, it was proved that the wife was in much better health condition and did not show signs of schizophrenia as per the most recent medical report from Nimhans. The apex court said that, even if she did suffer from schizophrenia, is in a much better health condition at present. Therefore, the Court cannot grant the dissolution of marriage on the basis of one spouse’s illness.
The Division Bench of Justice GS Singhvi and V Gopala Gowda said that under the Hindu law, marriage is an institution, a meeting of two hearts and minds and is something that cannot be taken 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. In Vedic Index I it is stated that, “the high value placed on the marriage is shown by the long and striking hymn”.
In 2014, the Bombay High Court while hearing an appeal filed by the wife of a man who suffered from recurrent insanity attacks after their marriage, and as a result of which used to abuse and harass his wife, took into consideration the question of law as to whether a Hindu marriage between two parties can be dissolved by a divorce decree under Section 13(1)(iii) on the ground that one spouse suffers from mental illness. The husband in this case had contended that he was not a patient of mental illness; instead, he was suffering from sleeplessness and stress and was under medication. After taking into account the evidence presented and the arguments provided, the Division Bench of Justice VL Achliya and VK Tahilramani observed that the wife failed to prove that the husband treated her with cruelty and is suffering from any mental disorder of such nature that she cannot be reasonably expected to live with him. The Bench said that there was minor wear and tear of their married life. It is a settled law that a decree of divorce cannot be granted on minor wear and tear of a married life. Therefore, the wife is not entitled to get the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and mental disorder of the husband as per Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
—By Adarsh Kumar and India Legal Bureau