2013 (9) TMI 1298 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Respondent is suffering from a serious mental disorder i.e. schizophrenia or incurable unsoundness of mind, and can this be considered as a ground for divorce u/s 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
2. Whether the High Court has correctly re-appreciated the facts pleaded and evidence on record while dismissing the divorce petition of the Appellant and allowing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights of the Respondent?
3. Whether the appeal filed by the Appellant has to be allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court restored while dismissing the petition for conjugal rights filed by the Respondent?

Summary:

Issue 1:
The Supreme Court examined whether the Respondent's alleged schizophrenia could be considered a ground for divorce u/s 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court referred to the case of Ram Narain Gupta v. Rameshwari Gupta, emphasizing that the degree of mental disorder must be such that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. The Court noted that not all mental abnormalities justify dissolution of marriage. The High Court found no positive evidence that the Respondent suffered from schizophrenia to a degree that would make marital life impossible.

Issue 2:
The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's re-appreciation of the facts and evidence. The High Court relied on the testimony of medical experts, including Dr. Krishna Murthy and Dr. Ravi S. Pandey, who found no evidence of schizophrenia in the Respondent. The High Court concluded that schizophrenia is a treatable condition and does not necessarily make marital life impossible. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's assessment and found that the trial court had misinterpreted the medical evidence.

Issue 3:
The Supreme Court considered whether to restore the trial court's judgment and decree of divorce. The Court noted that the High Court had rightly set aside the trial court's findings, which were based on misinterpretation of medical evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Respondent's condition did not meet the legal threshold for "unsound mind" or "mental disorder" as grounds for divorce u/s 13(1)(iii) of the Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, dismissing the Appellant's petition for divorce and granting the Respondent's petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The Court emphasized the sacredness of marriage and the need for both parties to reconcile and seek appropriate treatment for the Respondent's condition. The appeal was dismissed, and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was granted in favor of the Respondent.