KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
H.G. Ramesh and Rathnakala, JJ.
Smt. Shilpa —Appellant
versus
Praveen S.R. —Respondent
Misc. First Appeal No.103381 of 2014 (FC)
Decided on 20.7.2016

IMPORTANT POINT
Mental disorder of the wife even if proved cannot by itself warrant a decree of divorce and it must be further proved that it is of such a nature as the husband could not be expected to live with the wife.

Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 13(1)(iii)—Decree for dissolution of marriage by divorce on ground that appellant wife was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and on the ground of cruelty—Appeal—Evidence of doctor showed that wife was taken for treatment in 2002 on her complaint of hearing voices and feeling suspicious and was treated for Schizophrenia form psychosis and after medication her condition improved—In 2005 when she discontinued medicine, her problems aggravated—As per testimony of doctor she had Bipolar affective disorder i.e. disturbances of mood episodically and if put on regular check up treatment, disease could be controlled—Mental cruelty was a conduct which inflicted upon other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with other—Wife fell within category of those whose Schizophrenic condition could be kept under control with regular medication—Wife could not be said to be suffering with incurable form of Schizophrenia to the extent that husband could not be reasonably expected to cohabit with her—Impugned decree was liable to be set aside.

       Held: It emerges that, the parties were married as per their customs on 1.12.2011. Since the husband was working at Bangalore, he did not take the wife with him to Bangalore since he had not yet set up a rented house and left her in his parents’ place at Bellary. However, he was visiting his parents’ house but their cohabitation was short lived till 4.4.2012 on which date, she was taken by her father to his place. It is also established by the evidence of the Doctor/PW-3 that the wife was taken to him for treatment in the year 2002 on her complaint of hearing voices and feeling suspicious and she was treated for Schizophrenia form psychosis. After medication, her condition improved. In the year 2005, when she discontinued the medicine, her problems had aggravated. Again she continued with the medication. After the marriage also, she was under constant treatment with PW-3/Dr.C.Y.Sudarshan, Professor of Psychiatry, J.J.M.Medical College, Davangere. In the meanwhile, she was examined as inpatient for five days by PW-2, a private Neuro Psychiatric Medical Practitioner at Bellary. She was taken by her husband to PW-2 for a report. But even after putting her on test for 5 days, the Doctor could not give conclusive report of her condition since it requires long term observation and also examination of both spouses. The husband had not tendered himself for examination. As per the testimony of PW-3 (the Doctor who has been treating her since the year 2002) she has Bipolar affective disorder i.e., disturbances of mood episodically. While under depressed mood, she has decreased appetite and sleep, poor concentration and fearful; during happy mood, she has mild anger and irritability in her behaviour. In his opinion, if she is put on regular check-up and regular treatment, the disease that she is suffering with, can be controlled, but it is not curable.

       As per the report of the NIMHANS dated 1.4.2014, on her mental state examination, she was found to be asymptomatic. Her diagnosis is “Paranoid Schizophrenia”. If she remains symptom-free, she may be able to discharge marital responsibilities. At the end, the report refers PW-3/Dr.C.Y.Sudarshan, Psychiatrist of Davangere, her treating Doctor as the most appropriate person to provide additional information since he has seen her for over a decade.

       The judgment in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511] (Larger Bench) listed illustrations (i) to (xiv) of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of ‘cruelty’. It was the prologue before the commencement of list of illustrations that they are not exhaustive but illustrative. Out of those illustrations, it suffices for the present to gather that the ill-conduct alleged must be persisted for a long period. It needs to be a sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. It needs to be a sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse or leading to apprehension which is grave, substantial and weighty. In the case on hand, alleged acts of cruelty that reflected during the limited cohabitation of the couple since perceived by the husband as a result of incurable mental disorder of the wife, entire weight is on the ground of divorce contemplated under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act.

       Fortunately for the wife she falls within the category of those whose schizophrenic condition can be kept under control with regular medication. Her situation is not a “out of control situation”. During her symptoms also, she is not wild nor offensive or harmful.

       In our considered opinion, the Court below was insensitive in branding the wife as suffering with completely incurable paranoid schizophrenia. Very same medical evidence, on which the Family Court was acting upon at the same time, was indicating the possibility of such patients leading normal life with regular medication and family support. We have living examples of lot many victims of such ailment in our society, who are leading life with the support of regular medication like any other normal members of the society. The appellant/wife, who was present before this Court, looked like any other person present in the Court hall, she is a M.C.A. graduate with 1st class with distinction and it is also the submission at the Bar, she was employed prior to her marriage, even if there is any apprehension of recurring of schizophrenic symptoms, the answer is in re-modeling the medicine, but not in amputing her marital/emotional life itself.

       Having held that the husband has failed to make out a case under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act on the ground of wife suffering with incurable form of Schizophrenia, to the extent that he cannot be reasonably expected to cohabit with her, the impugned judgment and decree needs to be set aside. (Paras 8, 9, 13, 17, 25 & 27)

       Result: Appeal allowed.