Leprosy of a mild type is not a virulent and incurable form of leprosy and does not entitle a spouse to a divorce under Section 13 (1) (iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

CHANDRA REDDY, C. J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of O. P. Nos. 79 and 105 of 1957 respectively and raise a common question, namely, whether the respondent was suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy for a period of not less than three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition (O. P. No. 79 of 1957 ).

( 2 ) THE parties are the same in both the appeals. The wife preferred O. P. No. 70 of 1957 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging that her husband had been suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy from the year 1953. It was alleged in the petition that their marriage took place in their childhood, that after she attained puberty the marriage had been consummated, that she led conjugal life with her husband for about six months when she discovered that he had symptoms of loathsome skin disease and that later on it was found to be leprosy which was incurable and was of a virulent type.

( 3 ) THE petition was resisted by the respondent, the husband, on the grounds inter alia, that the leprosy from which he was suffering was a mild one that he took treatment in the leprosy hospital at Salur and that he was cured of the symptoms of the disease. It was his further case that it was only in 1956 that the symptoms of leprosy appeared. He also filed O. P. No. 105 of 1957 for restitution of conjugal rights with the same allegations as those contained in his counter in O. P. No. 79 of 1957.

( 4 ) IN support of his contention that the leprosy he was suffering from was of a mild type and did not answer the description of a virulent and incurable form of disease, the respondent examined a skin expert attached to the K. G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam, as R. W. 1. The doctor deposed that the respondent had been suffering only from non-infective type of leprosy and that he took his nasal clipping and it did not show any positive bacilli. In cross-examination, it was elicited from the doctor that the word cure could not be used In leprosy but it could be arrested from further advance, that with treatment the person suffering could improve his leather (skin) and that the leprosy which the respondent was having could be arrested by treatment. The witness added : -"he is otherwise normal for conjugal life. Conjugal life does not encourage the disease. The partner will not be particularly affected if the respondent has conjugal life. If it is infective type of leprosy, it can be contracted through contact, In the case of respondent, it cannot be transmitted through blood on cohabitation. . . . . . "the certificate issued by the doctor (Ex. B-1), prior to his examination in Court was to the same effect.

( 5 ) BASED on the opinion of this expert, the Subordinate Judge reached the conclusion that the respondent was not suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy within the purview of Section 13 (1) (iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Consequently, he dismissed O. P. No. 79 of 1957. On the same ground, he allowed the respondents petition (O. P. No. 105 of 1957) under Section 9. In other words, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was granted to the respondent. The aggrieved wife has preferred these two appeals.

( 6 ) THE short question that falls for decision in these appeals is whether the leprosy from which the respondent was suffering is of a virulent and incurable type. Sri Bagiratha Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, urges that the disease from which the appellant has been suffering from should be regarded as an incurable one, having regard to the evidence of the expert, who stated that the word cure could not be used in leprosy and, therefore, the wife is entitled to invoke Section 13 (1) (iv ). We do not think that this argument is admissible. Assuming that leprosy cannot be cured completely as stated by the doctor, that, by itself, would not enable a spouse to get a decree, for divorce. Before this clause

Click Here to Read the rest of this document