2017 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 32
MADRAS HIGH COURT
A. K. Rajan, J
Jagedeeswari T. v. Anand alias Mohankumar
C.M.A.No.990 of 2008 | Crl.R.C.No.1353 of 2007
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.C.R.Prasannan
For the Respondents: Mr.L.Mouli
A spouse must demonstrate that the other has incurable unsoundness of mind preventing reasonable cohabitation; mere abnormal behavior is insufficient for divorce.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(iii) - Divorce - Ground of unsoundness of mind - High degree of proof required to prove incurable unsoundness affecting the ability to remain married - Mere allegations of abnormal behavior insufficient - Court held the husband did not prove the wife's mental condition rendered her unfit for marriage. (Paras 11, 12, 22, and 24)
(B) Maintenance - Entitlement under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. - Since divorce set aside and due to income suppression by husband, wife awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.2,500/- for the child from the date of the maintenance petition. (Paras 26, 27)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of divorce appeal due to claims of unsoundness of mind. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. maintenance petition filed alongside divorce petition. (Para 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 3. legal arguments regarding grounds for divorce. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. evidence and standards for proving grounds of unsoundness. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. court's interpretation of unsoundness of mind in legal terms. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. court concludes no sufficient evidence for divorce. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. final decision granting maintenance after annulment of divorce. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
1. The wife, who suffered a decree for divorce in H.M.O.P. No.536 of 2004 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore, is the appellant in this appeal. The said H.M.O.P.No.536 of 2004 was filed by the husband under S.13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming that the wife is suffering from incurable unsoundness of mind to such an extent that he cannot reasonably be expected to live with her.
2. The sum and substance of allegations in the petition is as follows: Even on the second day after marriage the respondent / wife had disclosed that she does not like him and she did not consent for the marriage. The marriage took place because of the compulsion of her parents. The petitioner / husband had advised her and attempted to live happily. He would claim that the respondent / wife always fought with him. She would not sleep the whole night, would sit out side the house and torment him. According to the husband, she had often threatened to commit suicide. Such behaviour on the part of the wife caused serious mental agony and fear in him. When he complained about the above conduct of the respondent / wife to her parents, they have taken her to their house on 27.11.2011 and they had consulted a psychiatrist by name Dr.Pradeep at 219, Cowli Brown Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore. After a week her parents brought her to the husband's house and left her, stating that she will lead normal life. In the mean time, the respondent / wife became pregnant. But her attitude did not change. She has behaved in the same manner without even bothering about her health condition. It is also claimed that the wife left the house along with her parents after removing the Thali. This conduct caused serious mental agony to the petitioner / husband. However, after few days, the parents of the respondent / wife came to the petitioner's house and said that the removal of Thali happened by mistake and they collected the Thali and her jewels. They also invited him for the Valaikapu ceremony. On 12.07.2002 a male child was born to the respondent wife. On the same day i.e., 12.07.2002, the respondent / wife took treatment from another psychiatrist Dr.K.Raghunathan at Bala Medical Centre hospital, Trichy Road, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore. Since the respondent / wife's condition deteriorated, on the day of the wedding anniversary i.e., 05.11.2002, she was admitted as inpatient in the Tiruchur mental hospital, Kerala, where she was treated for four days. It is also claimed by the husband that he is afraid that the respondent / wife may commit suicide, if she is required to live with him. On the aforesaid pleadings, the petitioner / husband sought for divorce on the ground of unsoundness of mind.
3. The respondent / wife resisted the said petition contending that at the insistence of the mother of the petitioner / husband, he would beat her with belt and wooden stick. It is also her case that the petitioner's mother would often instigate the petitioner to ill - treat her. The allegations of unsoundness of mind, torture, threatening with suicide etc., were denied specifically. She would claim that she is living as a dutiful wife and she begot a male child out of the wedlock. She was forced to bear with the cruel treatment meted out by the husband. The allegation of removal of Thali and the claim that she was treated at Bala Medical Centre on 12.07.2002 by Dr.K.Raghunathan were also denied. Though she ad