Mere existence of spouse’s mental disorder not enough to seek divorce: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently remarked that the mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree is not sufficient in law to justify dissolution of a marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).

Section 13(1)(iii) of the HMA provides that either spouse can apply for dissolution of marriage in case the other is of unsound mind or suffering from a mental disorder.

A Division Bench of Justices Ranjan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla held,

"Section 13 (1) (iii) of H.M. Act does not make mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify dissolution of a marriage. The contest in which the ideas of unsoundness of mind and mental disorder occur in section as ground for dissolution of a marriage, require assessment of degree of mental disorder and its degree must be such that spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other."

It also stated that not all mental abnormalities are recognised as grounds for divorce, adding,

"The medical concern against too readily reducing a human being into a functional nonentity and as a negative unit in family or society, is law's concern also, and is reflected, at least partially, in the requirements of section 13 (1)(iii) of H.M. Act. The personality disintegration that characterizes schizophrenia may be of varying degrees and that not all schizophrenics are characterized by same intensity of disease."

The Court was hearing an appeal moved by a husband against dismissal of his divorce plea by a family court. One of the main grounds in the plea was that his wife suffered from schizophrenia. In the plea filed in 2011, he claimed to have not been told about the illness before marriage, which took place in 2003. Further, the husband claimed that due to the illness, the wife's fertility has become zero and would end his lineage.

However, the Court noted that a spouse suffering from schizophrenia, by itself, is not sufficient to seek divorce as there may be various degrees of the mental illness.

“The law provides that a spouse in order to prove a ground of divorce on the ground of mental illness, ought to prove that the spouse is suffering from a serious case of schizophrenia which must also be supported by medical reports and proved by cogent evidence before Court that disease is of such a kind and degree that husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with wife,” it explained.

It noted the family court’s finding that the husband had failed to prove the gravity and degree of the illness. He had merely brought on record the fact of her long treatment, it found. 

“This Court has no hesitation in accepting findings and approach of learned Family Court, which appears to be valid and practical. Though, appellant/ husband was able to prove that respondent/ wife is suffering from schizophrenia, but he failed to prove that disease is of such a kind and degree, which may be accepted for dissolution of marriage in terms of Section 13 (1) (iii) of H.M. Act,” it said.

However, since the Court also found that the husband and wife have been living separately for more than a decade, it proceeded to dissolve the marriage.

The relief was granted, particularly considering the fact that the wife had not stayed at the matrimonial home for more than 6-7 days after marriage.

Since the wife had also chosen to not contest the appeal, the Court said it shows her disinclination to live with him. 

“Thus, the feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration of the appellant caused by the conduct of respondent for a long time may also lead to mental cruelty and the long period of continuous separation i.e. for more than a decade establishes that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair,” it said. 

The Court opined that by refusing to sever ties in such cases, the law does not serve the sanctity of marriage. 

“On the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such a situation, it may also lead to mental cruelty,” it added, while granting divorce to the husband over his wife’s willful desertion.

Advocate Bhavini Upadhyay, Pankaj Kumar Tripathi and Sandhya Dubey represented the husband.

[Read Judgment]