Back
2023 Supreme(Ori) 194
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Arindam Sinha, Sibo Sankar Mishra, JJ.
Om Bramhabid Mishra - Appellant
Versus
Ayushmati Subhra Mishra - Respondent
MATA No. 269 of 2022
Decided On : 21-11-2023
Ms. Jacquiline Jena, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Aruna Kumar Acharya, Advocate, for the Respondent.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the proper evaluation of evidence, particularly in cases involving mental health and allegations of cruelty, is crucial in determining the outcome of petitions for restitution of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Headnote:
RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 9 - The court discussed Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which allows a spouse to seek restitution of conjugal rights. The court interpreted the evidence presented, particularly the psychiatric prescriptions, and concluded that the family court erred in dismissing the husband's petition. The court emphasized the need for proper evaluation of evidence and the importance of consent in medical treatment, ultimately deciding that the husband's actions were not malicious and warranted the granting of restitution.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, after his wife left him, citing cruelty and mental health issues. The family court dismissed his petition, leading to this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the family court failed to properly appreciate the evidence regarding the wife's mental health and the husband's attempts to seek treatment for her. The court noted that the husband's actions were not malicious and that the evidence did not support the wife's claims of cruelty.
Issues: Whether the family court erred in dismissing the husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights and whether the evidence of the wife's mental health was adequately considered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the family court's reliance on the demeanor of the respondent-wife was misplaced and that the evidence presented by the husband regarding the wife's mental health treatment was not sufficiently evaluated. The court emphasized that the absence of a written statement from the wife and the lack of evidence supporting her claims of cruelty undermined the family court's decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the family court's judgment was set aside, and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was granted in favor of the appellant-husband.
JUDGMENT
Arindam Sinha, J.
Appellant-husband is before us in appeal being aggrieved by judgment dated 5th November, 2022 of the family Court, dismissing the petition filed by him, for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. Ms. Jena, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant- husband. She submits, after the marriage the couple moved to Bengaluru and thereafter Visakhapatnam as her client's job took him to those places. Her client tendered in evidence exhibit P-1 series. They are prescriptions dated 9th December, 2017 and 17th August, 2019. The prescriptions were by the doctor, who is also professor of psychiatry in Andhra Medical College and Superintendent, Government Hospital for Mental Care. The duly tendered documents were good evidence to show that her client was keen for obtaining treatment of respondent-wife. She, however, left his society and therefore the petition under section 9 for getting them back together. The family Court failed to appreciate the facts and erred by dismissing the petition. Impugned judgment be set aside in appeal and decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
3. Mr. Acharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent-wife. He submits, there is no error in impugned judgment. The learned Judge appreciated demeanor of his client, who endured the cross-examination. The learned Judge correctly found that his client had answered the questions without displaying any abnormality.
4. He submits, uncontroverted evidence by his client through her affidavit evidence-in-chief is that there was cruelty meted out to her, justifying her leaving the matrimonial home. Hence, the Court below found that the husband had mischievously filed for restitution of conjugal rights and thereby the petition stood dismissed.
5. We have perused the lower Court record. The appeal papers disclose most of it. On query from Court we have not been shown or demonstrated that respondent-wife had filed written statement.
6. We reproduce below paragraph-8.4 of the judgment.
'8.4 On perusal of pleading and evidence of petitioner/ husband, it comes to be known that he has categorically pleaded and adduced evidence that the respondent was suffered to such an extent of abnormality which required immediate treatment by the doctor and accordingly, he got her abnormality treated by the doctor by administering the prescribed drugs to the respondent. In order to corroborate her oral say, he has proved certain prescriptions marked as Ext.P.1 series. On perusal of the alleged prescriptions under Ext.P-1 series, it is seen that though the respondent was examined by one Psychiatrist, but such prescriptions are silent regarding the nature of disease allegedly suffered by the respondent by the time of her examination. Though the prescriptions dtd.17.8.2019 and 9.12.2017 does not reveal the fact of any nature of disease, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that as the said prescriptions were issued by a Psychiatric expert, it can be safely inferred that the respondent was suffering from schizophrenia as claimed by the petitioner. Admittedly, no doctor certificate is proved by the petitioner showing suffering of respondent from alleged schizophrenia disease. The petitioner has failed to prove any prescription of any Govt. Hospital.' (emphasis supplied)
7. In context of above reproduced paragraph from impugned judgment we made query regarding whether the doctor, who was consulted by appellant-husband in taking respondent-wife for treatment, was related to appellant-husband. The answer is in the negative. There is also no dispute that on 9th December, 2017 and thereafter on 17th August, 2019, respondent-wife was taken to the doctor and two prescriptions were written out. Thus they were duly exhibited. The prescriptions are on examination made with an intervening period of more than 1 and 1/2 years. In this time, according to respondent-wife by her evidence on affidavit, she with her bro
