Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, JASMEET SINGH, JJ.
Sandeep Aggarwal - Petitioner
Versus
Priyanka Aggarwal - Respondent
Mat. App. (F.C.) 142 of 2020
Decided On : 24-12-2021
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 12, 12(1)(b) and 28 - Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19 - Voidable marriage - Divorce Petition - Suffering from Acute Schizophrenia - Mental disorder - Marriage between appellant and the respondent was solemnized - As per appellant, marriage between appellant and the respondent was the outcome of a calculated fraud that was perpetrated by the respondent and her family members as they chose not to disclose a vital and crucial fact regarding respondent’s mental health/ailment - Whether a mental disorder is curable can be subject matter of determination of by a Court of Law having regard to the expert medical opinion and particularly the ongoing development in the scientific and medical research in this direction.
Finding of the Court: Family Court fell in error in rejecting appellant’s application - Appellant had to fend for himself, and he could not seek a direction from Court for medical examination of the respondent was erroneous - Evidence with regard to respondent’s medical condition - which related to her mental health, could possibly not have been garnered by appellant without co-operation of respondent. Only upon medical examination of respondent, it could be established, with definiteness whether, or not, she is suffering from Schizophrenia, even though, there were pointers in that direction - The only way of conclusively determining the mental health of Respondent is by subjecting Respondent to an examination by an expert Medical Board. The appellant has significantly discharged onus by leading cogent evidence, and raise a preponderance of probability, that Respondent is suffering from Schizophrenia - It is not case of respondent that either of conditions enumerated in Section 12(2)(a)(i), or (ii) exists in present case, which would have debarred appellant from seeking annulment of marriage on ground contained in Section 12(1)(b) of Hindu Marriage Act. That is not defence set up by her, or established by her. The failure on part of respondent to disclose her mental disorder before her marriage with the appellant - As alleged by him, constituted a fraud perpetrated upon appellant. Apart from stating that parties had met a few times before the marriage, respondent has not specifically averred, or established, that appellant was made aware of mental disorder suffered by the respondent, which was passed-off by her as mere “headaches”. Headaches-by themselves are not a disease. They are only symptoms of a disease. Respondent does not state what caused her such serious and frequent headaches, which debilitated her from completing her studies.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Jasmeet Singh, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 on behalf of the appellant (husband) against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the Family Court, Dwarka, wherein the petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The brief factual matrix as per the appellant, necessitating filing of the petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the present appeal, are as under:
3. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 10.12.2005. As per the appellant, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was the outcome of a calculated fraud that was perpetrated by the respondent and her family members as they chose not to disclose a vital and crucial fact regarding the respondent’s mental health/ailment.
4. According to the appellant, the respondent was, before the marriage, and during the days that she stayed with the appellant, suffering from Acute Schizophrenia. The respondent behaved in a very unusual manner after her marriage in the matrimonial home, as well as during their honeymoon.
5. Consequently, the appellant took the respondent to Dr. Inderjeet Sharma in January, 2006, who after examining her referred her to GB Pant hospital, where Dr. Rajiv Mehta examined the respondent and prescribed certain medicines. Finding no change in respondent’s behaviour, the appellant took her to a neuro surgeon at Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences, Delhi where the respondent was examined again and Dr. Harcharan Singh prescribed her medicines.
6. On 11.02.2006, the appellant took the respondent to Hindu Rao Hospital at Delhi, where Dr. Jitender Kumar examined the respondent. As per the appellant, after meeting the said doctor respondent shouted “isi doctor ne mujhe pehle bhi davai di hai.”
7. Since the appellant did not find any improvement in the mental health of the respondent, he also took her to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, where Dr. Mamta Sood, Neuro Psychiatrist examined her and prescribed her few medicines. As per Dr. Mamta Sood, the respondent was suffering from Acute Schizophrenia. The appellant thereafter questioned the respondent’s parents and narrated the mental condition of the respondent.
8. The appellant also averred in the petition regarding the mother and aunt of the respondent mixing something in the eatables. This is neither relevant, nor germane, to the issue in controversy and hence not adverted to, by us.
9. The appellant along with the other family members questioned the father of the Respondent, and it was then that the father of the respondent took the respondent with him to her parental home (after 9 weeks of marriage) on 17.02.2006 and, since then the respondent is living with her parents in their house. The appellant also averred that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was not consummated.
10. The respondent filed her written statement wherein she denied that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was not consummated. The respondent averred that she has never suffered from any mental or physical ailment, but she did suffer headaches during her college days due to which her studies were discontinued, and the said fact was clearly told to the appellant, the mediator, and all other persons concerned.
11. She further averred that the appellant, his family members, friends and relatives had met the respondent prior to marriage many a times, and there were numerous telephonic calls. Therefore, there was no question of respondent suffering from any mental ailment, much less, Schizophrenia either prior to the marriage or during subsistence of the marriage.
12. She further stated that the appellant met her prior to the ring ceremony with his family me
In a case of mental illness Court has adequate power to examine the party or get him examined by a qualified doctor, we are of the opinion that in an appropriate case Court may take recourse to such ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence did not support the claim that the respondent's mental illness made it impossible for the petitioner to lead a normal conjugal....
The power to order a person to undergo a medical test should be exercised only if there is strong prima facie evidence and sufficient material to direct such a test.
Failure to prove serious mental illness or fraud in marriage annulment under Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing strict evidentiary standards.
Mental health issues do not automatically justify annulment under the Hindu Marriage Act; substantial proof of incapacity and unfitness for marriage is required.
Insufficient evidence of mental disorder or cruelty fails to establish grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
