Back
1987 Supreme(AP) 1
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.RAMASWAMY, P.A.CHOUDHARY
Ayyala Somayajula Satyanandam - Appellant
Versus
Ayyala Somayajula Usha Devi - Respondent
Decided On : 01-01-87
The interpretation of Sections 12(1)(c) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in relation to the grounds for nullity of marriage and divorce based on mental disorder or unsoundness of mind, and the requirement of medical evidence to establish such mental conditions.
Headnote:
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 12(1)(C), 13(1)(III) - NULLITY OF MARRIAGE - DIVORCE - MENTAL DISORDER - IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE - INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - LEGAL PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
Husband sought a decree of nullity of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) or a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging that the wife had mental inequilibrium and that the marriage was not consummated. The wife denied the allegations and claimed that the husband had changed his attitude towards her after the marriage due to certain demands made by her father.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the husband failed to prove that the wife had any mental disorder or unsoundness of mind that would render the marriage void under Section 12(1)(c). The court also found that the husband had not established the ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii), as there was no evidence of incurable unsoundness of mind or mental disorder of such a kind and extent that the husband could not reasonably be expected to live with the wife.
Issues: 1. Whether the wife had mental inequilibrium at the time of marriage, rendering the marriage void under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? 2. Whether the husband had established the ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act, based on the wife's alleged mental disorder?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and held that "incurably of unsound mind" means a person afflicted with an incurable disease of the mental faculty, rendering them incapable of managing themselves or their affairs as an ordinary reasonable person would. 2. The court further interpreted Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act and held that to establish a ground for divorce under this provision, the petitioner must prove both incurable unsoundness of mind or mental disorder of a specific kind and extent, and that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent as a result of such mental condition. 3. The court emphasized the importance of medical evidence in determining the mental state of a party in cases involving mental disorder or unsoundness of mind.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the husband's appeal, holding that he had failed to establish the grounds for nullity of marriage or divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court also rejected the husband's argument that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, as there was no evidence to support this claim.
( 1 ) THE initial misgivings have shattered the sweet dreams of joyous and fruitful conjugal society as disillusionment at their ebb.
( 2 ) THE appellant-husband sought a decree of nullity of the marriage celebrated with the respondent-wife on July 5, 1980 at Ananthavaram village in Amalapuram Taluk of East Godavari District under Section 12 (1) (c) or a decree of divorce as per Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1966), for short, "the Act" and it was entailed with dismissal. Thus this appeal.
( 3 ) THE grounds on which he seeks a decree for nullity or of divorce are that the father of the respondent played fraud on him by suppressing that the respondent had mental inequilibrium and thereby is suggestion falsi that the respondent had good health, hale and healthy. He believed the said representation. But during the time of marriage, the respondent appeared to be "a person of unsound mind suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and lead a happy life, "falling within Section 12 (1) (c) of the \ct. But he kept quiet at the time of marriage as he hails from a respectable family. After the marriage, the respondent "exhibited and is exhibiting positive aversion and dislike towards the petitioner (appellant) and in consequence no nuptial marriage had taken place. The respondent is proved to be subject to recurring attacks of insanity and is suffering from mental disorder of an incurable type. " Thereby, he seeks a decree for divorce under Sec. 13 (1) (iii) of the Act.
( 4 ) THE respondent has pleaded that prior to marriage, as a result of arrangements made by the elders, the appellant and the respondent met together and frankly exchanged views of the marital life. The appellant closely knew the respondent and her family since many an year. The appellant himself initiated the marriage proposals. He visited personally twice prior to the marriage and he satisfied himself with all aspects and the marriage was settled. Thus the plea of fraud was denied. It is further pleaded that at the time of marriage, the appellant made certain demands beyond the capacity of the respondent s father which the respondent s lather could not comply with ; as a result the appellant made sudden change of his attitude to the surprise of everyone attending the marriage due to which "the respondent got highly perturbed fearing that the marriage would be cancelled, but somehow by the interference of the elders, the ceremonies of the marriage were concluded on the marriage day". Yet the appellant persisted on his demands. Despite persuasion by the elders, it yielded no result. Thereby the nuptial marriage has not been performed. Since then, the respondent s father approached the petitioner many a time and requested him to take the respondent but the appellant flatly refused to take her. She has been "very anxious to join the petitioner and is ready and willing to abide by the just demands if any made by the petitioner. She suffered mental agony because of the sudden change of the petitioner".
( 5 ) ON framing appropriate issues and on adduction of evidence, the trial Court giving consideration thereof, disbelieved the version of the appellant and found that the respondent was an under-graduate prosecuting First year B. Com. course of study at the time of marriage. The appellant has shown peculiar attitude to avoid the marriage. There is no concealment of material facts of the mental state of the respondent s mind so as to annul the marriage under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act. The appellant failed to establish the same. Though from the evidence it would appear that during the course of examination of the respondent she behaved in an irresponsible way in giving answers, her evidence does establish that she is not having any disability of mind or showing abnormal aggressiveness. Her serious irresponsible answers cannot be equated to that of her physical conduct. Wha
