9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 1431 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights against the appellant - primary argument of the appellant was that the accumulated evidence supports the finding that the Respondent was/is suffering from F-20 Hebephrenia - disease of respondent concealed at the time of marriage - determination of truth - Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act - HELD THAT - The outright refusal of the respondent to undergo any medical examination, prevents the court arriving at the truth. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Kollam Chandra Sekhar v. Kollam Padma Latha 2013 (9) TMI 1298 - SUPREME COURT by relying on the testimony of a doctor that Schizophrenia is a treatable, manageable disease, which can be put on a par with hypertension and diabetes. However, the same requires determination by a doctor, and in Dharam Pal 2003 (3) TMI 739 - SUPREME COURT the court has observed that but it is another thing to say that a party may be asked to submit himself to a psychiatrist or a psychoanalyst so as to enable the Court to arrive at a just conclusion. Whether the party to the marriage requires a treatment or not can be found out only in the event, he is examined by a properly qualified Psychiatrist. Therefore, in such circumstance determination of truth is an important step for us to enable making of a fair decision. Marriage is not made of only happy memories and good times, and two people in a marriage have to face challenges and weather the storm together. It is not easy to live with a partner who has mental health issues, and such ailments come with their own challenges for the person facing the problem, and even more so for the spouse. There needs to be an understanding of the problems in a marriage, and communication between the partners especially when one of the two partners in a marriage is facing challenges of their own. Treatment of any mental ailment requires acceptance of the same, not only by the family members but, most importantly, by the person suffering therefrom. A combined reading of the evidence as well as the admission of the respondent, even though, may not conclusively prove that the respondent was suffering from Schizophrenia/Hebephrenia- F-20 prior to her marriage, at the time of her marriage, and; subsequent to her marriage, but definitely raises a serious doubt about the mental health of the respondent, and points to the possibility of the appellant‟s allegations in that regard being true. The Family Court fell in error in rejecting the appellant‟s application. The approach of the Family Court that the appellant had to fend for himself, and he could not seek a direction from the Court for medical examination of the respondent was erroneous. It is not that this direction was sought by the appellant without any foundation or basis. The appellant had raised a plea that the respondent was suffering from Schizophrenia from day one. The appellant had shown the respondent to several specialists, and the medications prescribed show that they were relevant for treatment of Schizophrenia. The appellant also produced the medical doctors/ specialists and exhibited their prescriptions. The parties lived together for hardly any period, as the respondent was taken away by her father after about nine weeks of marriage from the matrimonial home. The evidence with regard to the respondent‟s medical condition which related to her mental health, could possibly not have been garnered by the appellant without co-operation of the respondent. Only upon medical examination of the respondent, it could be established, with definiteness whether, or not, she is suffering from Schizophrenia, even though, there were pointers in that direction. Pertinently, the Respondent could not establish any reason as to why, so early in the marriage, the parties separated, when according to the respondent, there were no serious issues in the relationship. The fact that she sought Restitution of Conjugal Rights itself shows that so far as she was concerned, she had no serious complaints with the appellant; or the relationship - the Family Court was duty bound to direct the medical examination of the respondent. The appellant could not have been left to gather evidence of the respondent‟s mental condition on his own. The fact that the parties could not live together beyond nine weeks itself shows that the mental disorder suffered by the respondent is of a kind, and to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children. It is not the case of the respondent that either of the conditions enumerated in Section 12(2)(a)(i), or (ii) exists in the present case, which would have debarred the appellant from seeking annulment of marriage on the ground contained in Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. That is not the defence set up by her, or established by her. The failure on the part of the respondent to disclose her mental disorder before her marriage with the appellant as alleged by him, constituted a fraud perpetrated upon the appellant - the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is annulled on the ground contained in Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of Fraud and Non-disclosure of Mental Health 2. Examination of Medical Evidence and Witness Testimonies 3. Refusal to Undergo Medical Examination 4. Grounds for Annulment under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act 5. Adverse Inference Due to Refusal for Medical Examination 6. Determination of Mental Disorder's Impact on Marriage Detailed Analysis: 1. Allegation of Fraud and Non-disclosure of Mental Health: The appellant (husband) alleged that the marriage was the result of a calculated fraud by the respondent (wife) and her family, who failed to disclose the respondent's mental health issues, specifically Acute Schizophrenia, prior to the marriage. The appellant claimed that the respondent exhibited unusual behavior shortly after marriage, prompting multiple medical consultations. 2. Examination of Medical Evidence and Witness Testimonies: The appellant presented medical evidence and witness testimonies to support his claim. He cited visits to various doctors, including Dr. Inderjeet Sharma, Dr. Rajiv Mehta, Dr. Harcharan Singh, Dr. Jitender Kumar, and Dr. Mamta Sood, who diagnosed the respondent with Schizophrenia and prescribed antipsychotic medications. The Family Court, however, found that the appellant failed to conclusively prove the respondent's pre-marriage mental disorder, noting that the medical prescriptions and testimonies were unsubstantiated and unproved. 3. Refusal to Undergo Medical Examination: The appellant's request for the respondent to undergo a medical examination by a Medical Board was denied by the Family Court. The respondent's counsel, who is also her father, refused the proposal, arguing that it would amount to cruelty. The High Court noted that the refusal to undergo medical examination raised a presumption against the respondent, as per the precedent set in Sharda v. Dharampal. 4. Grounds for Annulment under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act: The High Court examined whether the marriage could be annulled under Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which allows annulment if a party was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of marriage, making them unfit for marriage and procreation. The Court found that the respondent's refusal to undergo medical examination and the evidence presented by the appellant raised serious doubts about the respondent's mental health. 5. Adverse Inference Due to Refusal for Medical Examination: The High Court drew an adverse inference against the respondent due to her refusal to undergo medical examination, as allowed under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court noted that the refusal prevented a conclusive determination of the respondent's mental health, which was crucial for resolving the case. 6. Determination of Mental Disorder's Impact on Marriage: The High Court observed that the respondent's mental disorder, if proven, would have made her unfit for marriage and procreation, as evidenced by the short duration of cohabitation (nine weeks) and the appellant's consistent efforts to seek medical treatment for the respondent. The Court concluded that the respondent's undisclosed mental disorder constituted a fraud on the appellant, justifying the annulment of the marriage. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the appeal, annulled the marriage on the grounds of fraud and non-disclosure of the respondent's mental disorder, and granted token costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant. The Court emphasized the importance of truth in matrimonial disputes and the necessity of medical examinations to determine mental health issues.
|
