Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Utpal Hazari - Appellant
Versus
Maya Hazari - Respondent
Appeal from Original Decree No. 59 of 2012
Decided on : 03-07-2018
Evidence Act, 1872 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 20 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VI Rule 2, Order VII Rule 11, 13 and 14 – Dissolution of the marriage – Hindu Marriage Act 1955 – Sections 14, 12, 13 – Grounds of cruelty and mental disorder – Appellant is the husband aggrieved by the dismissal of his Matrimonial Title Suit by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, whereunder, learned court refused to dissolve the marriage between the parties on the grounds of cruelty and mental disorder under section 13(1)(i-a)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955. – Held, Plea of mental disorder for seeking divorce in terms of Section 13(1) (iii) of the Act of 1955 should be substantiated with cogent evidence to establish that the respondent was suffering from incurable unsoundness of mind or her mental disorder was so continuous or intermittent to such an extent that petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. – Findings of mental disorder, as such, causes stigma against the party concerned. – It should not be easily rendered unless weighty circumstances and evidence are adduced by the petitioner. – Court do not find that the evidence on record were of such a nature that the plea of mental disorder raised by the petitioner was established to the hilt. – Court, however, do not approve the approach of the learned Family Court in the manner in which the evidence of the medical expert has been treated. – Under Section 12 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, it is open to a Family Court to secure the services of a medical expert or such person (preferably a women were available) whether related to the parties or not, including a person professionally engaged in promoting the welfare of the Family as the Court may think fit, for the purposes of assisting the Family Court in discharging the functions imposed by the Act. – A perusal of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act also makes it clear that Family Court is entitled to receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may in its opinion assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same is otherwise relevant or admissible under the Evidence Act, 1872. – The scheme of the Act, therefore, suggests that the rigors of the Evidence Act, do not apply on all fours, in a proceeding before the Family Court. – In the present case, respondent had not disputed having gone for treatment to the Dr. P.K. Choudhary, who had examined her for some unstable behaviour between 2003-05. – Merely on account of the fact that certain details of age or parentage were not recorded on the prescription, the evidence of the doctor should not have been out rightly discarded. – Learned Family Court at the same time fell in error in recording a difference with the opinion of its predecessor on the point of examination of the respondent in a specialized hospital, on the ground that it would be hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution. – Article 20(3) of the Constitution prevents self-incrimination. – Article 20(3) provides that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. – The present case was not in relation to any offence or criminal proceeding. – Therefore, reliance thereupon by the learned Family Court was totally misplaced. – On the basis of the analyses of the materials on record we may say that circumstances beyond the control of the parties such as the death of their only son in unfortunate circumstances may have led to the present situation. – But, the petitioner definitely could not seek dissolution of the marriage on such a serious ground of mental disorder of the respondent which do not find established on the weight of the evidence on record. – The marriage between the parties, therefore, cannot be dissolved on the ground that it might have been irretrievably broken down. – As such, court do not subscribe to the view urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. – Appeal Dismissed
Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Despite service of notice on two previous occasions and again through special messenger of the Court, respondent refused to accept notice. As such, respondent has remained unrepresented.
2. Appellant is the husband aggrieved by the dismissal of his Matrimonial Title Suit No. 46 of 2007 by the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2012/09.02.2012, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, whereunder, learned court refused to dissolve the marriage between the parties on the grounds of cruelty and mental disorder under section 13(1)(i-a)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955.
Case of the petitioner/appellant
3. The parties entered into marriage on 29.07.1983 at Dhanbad according to Hindu religious rites and customs. Petitioner alleged that the brother of the respondent who was the intermediary and his relatives deliberately concealed the hereditary bio-polar disorder of their family. The marriage was consummated but afterwards he found her extraordinarily emotional, stubborn and sentimental. She remained callous and indifferent towards him and appeared to be dissatisfied with his family atmosphere. She refused to perform matrimonial obligations towards her in-laws. A son was born out of the wedlock in 1984 but she failed to mend her ways. At times, she used to become furious and insult him in presence of his friends and relatives. She often used to abuse him as “Ass”, “Dog”, “Monkey” etc. Her cruelty increased day by day. He could not fathom the reasons. On much persuasion, she agreed to visit doctor for treatment of her behavior. However, her condition did not improve. Their only child died in the year 2000 in unfortunate circumstances. However, his death did not evoke any significant emotional change in her behavior. Subsequently, she was taken to Dr. P.K. Choudhary, a renowned psychiatrist in Ranchi, in the year 2003, who diagnosed her as a patient of chronic schizophrenia which had the tendency to show violent behavior at times if not controlled. She undertook medicine after great persuasion and the attacks of schizophrenia became of less intensity. However, she refused to take medicine anymore and became more unstable bordering on insanity. She perhaps bore hallucination that petitioner had illicit relationship with each and every female member including his own 60-year old sister. Her behaviour was surprisingly normal towards everyone else. The neighbours also used to take advantage of her unstable behavior and often provoked her to harass the petitioner more with malafide intention. She even denied cooking food and any household work. Again Dr. P.K. Choudhary was consulted, who categorically told him that she is suffering from incurable disease, which can only be controlled through proper medication but cannot be cured. The respondent had become more furious despite all his efforts and medical care and it was difficult to live with her. He was forced to leave the home on 5.3.2007 and is presently living a vagabond life. Petitioner has become apprehensive of any unwarranted incidence that may occur, hence, the instant suit was filed on the grounds of cruelty and mental disorder.
Respondent’s case
4. She stated that the suit is not maintainable. It was filed without any specific cause of action and attracted the provisions of Order VI Rule 2 of the C.P.C. She further pleaded that the plaint was fit to be rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11, 13 and 14 of the C.P.C. The ingredients of cruelty had not been disclosed and the stage etc. at which it surfaced, was also not made out. She had never been assessed as a patient of unsound mind for a long period or treated in a Mental Institution to establish the case of cruelty. The grievances raised by the husband were normal incidences of married life due to his unpleasantness towards the conduct of his wife. She had been caged in a single room flat of an apartment without sufficient means to maintain her status as a wife of
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
