Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 2976
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N. BALAYOGI, V RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ
Tallam Suresh Babu – Appellant
Versus
T.Swetha Rani – Respondent
FCA/105/2014
Important Points
Subject
Family Law - Marriage and Annulment
Headnote
(B) Mental disorders and annulment - The court determined that the appellant could not prove that the respondent's condition was of such a nature that it rendered her unfit for marriage, citing the legal standards regarding mental disorders under Section 5(ii) and Section 12(1) of the Act. (Paras 28, 30, 53)
Facts of the case:
The marriage took place on 31-01-2007, and within 18 months, the husband sought annulment claiming the wife’s mental condition was concealed, impacting his consent. The respondent defended the petition by demonstrating her health status and the familial history of both parties. (Paras 3, 4, 12)
Findings of Court:
The Family Court concluded that the health issues of the respondent were known to the appellant pre-marriage, and the claim of fraud was not substantiated. Therefore, the annulment petition was not justified. (Paras 12, 53)
Issues: The key issues included whether the respondent was unfit for marriage due to her mental health and whether fraud was established, necessitating annulment. (Paras 19, 53)
Ratio Decidendi: The court's conclusion emphasized that mere reference to mental illness without substantiated evidence of unfitness for marriage does not align with legal standards for annulment under the Hindu Marriage Act. (Paras 53)
Result: The appeals were dismissed, affirming that the annulment petition did not meet legal criteria. (Paras 53, 54)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's annulment of marriage due to wife's mental condition. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. resisting annulment based on familial agreements and behaviors. (Para 4 , 8) |
| 3. requirements for annulment under section 12 of the hindu marriage act. (Para 17 , 28) |
| 4. distinction between schizoid and schizophrenia in legal context. (Para 38 , 52) |
| 5. dismissing annulment and confirming restitution of conjugal rights. (Para 53 , 54) |
Common Judgment:
(per V.Ramasubramanian, J.)
Aggrieved by the dismissal of his own petition for annulment of marriage and the grant of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the instance of his wife, the husband has come up with the above appeals.
2. We have heard Mr. Y.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (husband) in both the appeals and Mr. P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent (wife).
3. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 31-01-2007 according to Hindu customary rites. Within 18 months of the solemnisation of the marriage, the appellant/husband filed a petition in O.P.No.95 of 2008 seeking annulment of the marriage on the ground that the respondent/wife did not allow him to have conjugal relationship and that when he took her for treatment, she was found to be suffering from Schizoform illness and that the enquiries revealed that the respondent/wife had been taking treatment for schizoid, making her unfit for sexual relationship and that the suppression of the same tantamounted to fraud, making the marriage liable to be annulled under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
4. The respondent/wife resisted the petition for annulment on the ground that the families of the appellant and the respondent were known to each other for more than 50 years; that they were also related on the maternal side of the appellant; that right from the childhood, both families had decided to have them married; that the respondent even stayed in the house of the appellant when she was studying Intermediate; that after the death of the appellant’s father, the mother and brother of the appellant started looking for an alliance elsewhere, which resulted in some sort of a depression for the respondent; that in that connection, the respondent was taken to Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, for treatment; that some time later, the attitude of the brother and mother of the appellant changed and they came forward to perform the marriage; that the betrothal took place in May, 2006 and the marriage was solemnized on 31-01-2007; that during this interregnum of about 7 to 8 months, the appellant used to talk to the respondent regularly on phone and they also used to attend parties and functions; that after marriage, the appellant was not interested in regular sexual relationship, but was interested only in oral sex; that the behaviour of the appellant again created disturbances in the mind of the respondent and hence her parents took both of them to a Neuro Psychiatrist by name Dr. Seshadri Harihar on 06-12-2007 and 07-12-2007 for consultation; that the appellant and the respondent were subjected to clinical examination by one Dr. Sabiha Sultana and they were also advised to consult a Sexologist; that the appellant refused to have any consultation; that the abnormal behaviour of the appellant resulted in the revival of her Schizoform illness; that Schizoform illness is a curable disease and hence it cannot be a ground for annulment of marriage.
5. Before the Family Court, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1. He examined his elder brother as P.W.2, his paternal uncle as P.W.3 and a Psychiatrist working as Assistant Professor in Kurnool Medical College as P.W.4. The Wedding Card and Wedding photographs were marked on the side of the appellant as Exs.A-1 and A-2. The treatment record of the respondent issued by Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, was filed as Ex.A-3. The Neuro Psychological Report, dated 07-12-2007, of the respondent was filed as Ex.A-4. Th
