SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 884

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. SINGHVI, V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
Kollam Chandra Sekhar – Appellant
Versus
Kollam Padma Latha – Respondent
Civil Appeal No.8264 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 3544 of 2007
Decided On : 17-09-2013

IMPORTANT POINT
Schizophrenia is not such incurable unsoundness of mind so as to attract Section 13(1)(iii).

Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) - Schizophrenia - Not incurable unsoundness of mind - Not attracting Section 13(1)(iii) - Court cannot grant dissolution of marriage on the basis of one spouse's illness. (Paras 20 to 22)

        (2006)3 SCC 778; (1959) 3 All ER 389 - Relied upon

        AIR 1991 Cal 123; AIR 1934 All 273 - Cited with approval

        (1988) 5 SCC 247; AIR 1986 P & H 379 - Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

        Divorce was granted to the husband and application for restitution of marriage was dismissed on the ground that the fact of the respondent being a patient of schizophrenia was not disclosed before marriage.

        High Court held that the decease even if true was not a ground for divorce. The Divorce decree was set aside and restitution was granted.

       Finding of the Court:

        Schizophrenia is not such incurable unsoundness of mind so as to attract Section 13(1)(iii).

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the common judgment and order dated28.09.2006 passed in CMA No. 2858 of 2002 and CMA No. 2859 of 2002 of the High Court of Andhra 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 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 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 was solemnized on 31.05.1995 at Kakinada (Andhra Pradesh) as per Hindu rites and customs and their marriage was 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.

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 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. 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 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 AIIMS. The appellant then joined as Assistant Professor in Gandhi Hospital at Secunderabad. The respondent and the child also joined him 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.

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 May1998, after the death of the father of the respondent, the appellant went on insisting that the 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 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 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 evidence as he could


























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top