http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 11

PETITIONER:

RAM NARAIN GUPTA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

SMT. RAMESHWARI GUPTA

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/09/1988

BENCH:

VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)

BENCH:

VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)

SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:

1988 AIR 2260 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 913

1988 SCC (4) 247 JT 1988 (3) 621

1988 SCALE (2)670

ACT:

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955--Section 13(1)(iii)--

Dissolution of marriage--All mental disorders not recognised

as grounds for grant of decree--Degree of severity or

acuteness of--To be proved--Burden of proof on the spouse

who alleges--Mere branding of a person as Schizophrenic not

enough.

HEADNOTE:

The appellant and respondent married in 1977. In 1983,

the appellant filed a suit for dissolution of the marriage,

alleging that his wife was suffering from severe mental

disorder, psychiatrically recognised as ‘Schizophrenia’

which rendered her unsociable and despite competent

professional treatment, her condition deteriorated to the

point of making manifest in her suicidal tendencies and

aggressive violent behaviour towards others. The appellant

could not therefore reasonably be expected to live with the

respondent as man and wife.

The Respondent denied the imputation of insanity and

contended that the appellant was determined to get rid of

her, as a result of the domestic discord between her and the

appellant’s mother and sister. Both the husband and the wife

gave evidence, to prove their respective cases. Other

witnesses were also examined. The respondent-wife produced a

copy of the order passed by the Magistrate in proceedings

initiated by the appellant under the Lunacy Act. for the

committal of his wife to a mental asylum. The order stated

that there was no abnormality in her, requiring

institutional treatment.

On appreciation of the evidence, the trial court

accepted the case of the appellant and granted a decree for

dissolution of the marriage.

The Respondent-wife appealed to the High Court. Allowing

the appeal, the High Court reversed the decree of

dissolution of marriage, granted by the trial court. It held

that the appellant had not shown that his wife’s mental

illness was so intense as to justify a reasonable

apprehension that it would be impossible or unsafe for the

appellant to live with her.

PG NO 913

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 11

PG NO 914

In the present appeal before this Court, it was

contended on behalf of the appellant that in assessing the

reasonableness of the husband’s apprehension that he could

not be expected to spend the rest of his life with a

‘Schizophrenic’, due acknowledgement required to be made to

his subjective susceptibilities also.

Dismissing the appeal,

HELD: 1.1 Section 13(1)(iii) does not make the mere

existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient to

justify the dissolution of a marriage. The burden of proof

of the existence of the requisite degree of mental disorder

is on the spouse basing the claim on that state of facts.

The context in which the ideas of unsoundness of ‘mind’ and

‘mental-disorder’ occur in the section as grounds for

dissolution of a marriage, require the assessment of the

degree of the ‘mental-disorder’. Its degree must be such as

that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected

to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not

recognised as grounds for grant of decree. [921 C-H; 922A]

1.2 scnizophrenia is said to be a difficult mental-

affliction. It is insidious in its onset and has hereditary

pre-disposing factor. Each case of Schizophrenia has to be

considered on its own merits. Mere branding of a person as

Schizophrenic will no