A mere diagnosis of mental illness does not justify divorce unless it renders cohabitation impossible; the burden of proof lies with the petitioner to substantiate claims of cruelty.

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered by Dr. A.D. Maria clete, J)

This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2023 passed by the III Additional Principal Family Court, in H.M.O.P. No.749 of 2022. The appellant, who was the petitioner/husband before the Family Court, filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The said petition was dismissed, and the present appeal challenges that dismissal.

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows: The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 02.12.2019 at Arulmighu Thiruthani Subramanya Swamy Temple. After the marriage, the parties commenced their matrimonial life at Guindy. It is alleged that the marriage was not consummated. The petitioner contends that the respondent frequently quarrelled with him and his family members over trivial matters. In March 2020, he discovered that the respondent was consuming Riscon LS tablets, which are typically prescribed for conditions such as schizophrenia or mania. According to the petitioner, the respondent was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia. When he sought medical records, her father allegedly stated they were missing. The petitioner further claims that he took the respondent for psychiatric treatment, but the efforts to improve her condition were in vain. Ultimately, on 09.06.2020, the petitioner left the respondent at her parental home, stating that he could no longer bear her behaviour. It is alleged that the respondent would stare at him throughout the night and exhibited suicidal tendencies, causing the petitioner reasonable apprehension for his safety and mental peace. He contends that the respondent’s family suppressed her mental condition prior to the marriage.

3.On the other hand, the respondent denied all the allegations and asserted that she was ill-treated by the petitioner and his family. She further stated that she was undergoing treatment for thyroid-related issues. The divorce petition was filed under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides for divorce on the ground of cruelty. However, in the pleadings, the petitioner repeatedly emphasized that the respondent was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia, and that her behaviour stemming from the illness caused him cruelty. In essence, although the petition was styled under the ground of cruelty, the substance of the averments aligns more closely with mental illness as contemplated under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act. Thus, the label on the petition does not match its core contents.

4.When a petition is filed under Section 13(1) (i-a) alleging cruelty, but the pleadings predominantly refer to the respondent's mental illness (schizophrenia) as the basis of such cruelty, the burden lies on the petitioner to establish both the existence of the illness and that the resultant conduct amounted to cruelty warranting a decree of divorce.

5.The allegations of cruelty in this case are vague and lack specificity. The petitioner merely stated that the respondent quarrelled with him and his family over trivial issues. The Act does not define cruelty, but it generally refers to conduct that causes a reasonable apprehension in the petitioner’s mind that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other spouse. No such serious or specific incidents have been cited by the petitioner.

6.The petitioner also alleged that the respondent washed his jeans along with his belt, wallet, and car key, wasted food, laughed incessantly, and stared at him—acts he attributes to her mental illness. Under Section 13(1)(iii), a mental disorder must be of such a nature and degree that it is unreasonable to expect the petitioner to live with the respondent. A mere diagnosis of schizophrenia does not, by itself, justify the grant of divorce.

7.The petitioner marked Ex. P4, a medical prescription, but did not examine any medical expert to support the diagnosis or its implications. The burden of proof was on the petitioner to establish that th