Ashutosh Kumar, Son of late Chandrika Singh, Resident of AE-14, Ashok Ashram, Dibdih, Ranchi-2 v. Sunita Kumari Singh, Daughter of Mahendra Pratap Singh, Resident of Dhela
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No. 4 of 2019 ---- Ashutosh Kumar, Son of late Chandrika Singh, Resident of AE-14, Ashok Ashram, Dibdih, Ranchi-2, P.O. P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand, at present residing at House No. 18, Harmu Housing Colony, Harmu, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi ( Jharkhand). …..Appellant Versus Sunita Kumari Singh, Daughter of Mahendra Pratap Singh, Resident of Dhela ….Respondent Toli, Tiril, P.O. Bariatu, P.S. Sadar, District-Ranchi. Coram: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Amicus Curiae -------- : Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate -------- -------- 11/4/10/2023 Per R Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Amresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing or the appellant and Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.10.2018 (decree signed on 22.11.2018) passed by Shri Brajesh Kumar Gautam, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 446 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the suit preferred for dissolution of marriage under section 13(1)(i-a)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed. 3. as per their status in the learned court below. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment A suit was preferred by the petitioner (appellant herein) under section 13(i)(1-a)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in which it has been averred that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent (respondent herein also) on 7.12.2008 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. On 8.12.2008, the respondent came to the house of the petitioner but due to the peculiar behaviour of the respondent, the marriage could not be consummated. The respondent started shouting and exhibited unnatural behaviour which shocked the family members of the petitioner. On 8.12.2008, the respondent was got examined by Dr. Shekhar Sinha and she was advised to consult a Psychiatrist. On 9.12.2008, a reception party was held in which the respondent started abusing the petitioner and his family members and once again exhibited abnormal behaviour. This behaviour of the respondent continued which was informed by the parents of the respondent who came and administered some medicines though the name of the medicines was not disclosed which aroused suspicion in the mind of the petitioner. The respondent had stayed at her matrimonial house for two months and thereafter she was taken away by her parents for treatment. The respondent
Legal Reasoning
2 First Appeal No. 4 of 2019 was examined by Psychiatrist Dr. P.K. Choudhary at Davis Institute, who disclosed that the respondent was suffering from mental disorder. The respondent had come to her matrimonial home during ‘Chhath Puja’ i.e. on 25.10.2009 but the behaviour of the respondent did not change which fortified the doubt that she was indeed suffering from mental disorder. Due to the marriage of her sister, the respondent returned back to her parental home on 6.12.2020 and again when she came back she exhibited the same sort of behaviour and the petitioner was also subjected to assault. It has been stated that the elder brother of the respondent is also suffering from some kind of mental disease. The father of the respondent got her examined at RINPAS on 10.12.2010 and after medical examination, it was detected that she was suffering from some mental disease. The respondent had several times threatened the petitioner of committing suicide. The parents of the respondent on being informed had taken away the respondent for treatment on 20.7.2011 and she never thereafter returned back to her matrimonial house. The parents of the respondent had concealed the fact of the respondent suffering from mental disorder and the marriage therefore is itself null and void. The petitioner has stated that he was subjected to mental and physical cruelty on account of the acts of the respondent. 5. On being noticed, the respondent had appeared and filed her written statement in which inter alia it has been stated that the suit filed by the petitioner is a counter blast to the application filed by the respondent before the Mahila P.S. Ranchi which has been registered as Case No. 623 of 2013. It has been stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has been solemnized on 7.12.2008 according to Hindu Rites and Customs at Ranchi and the demand made by the family of the petitioner has been fulfilled by the parents of the respondent. After marriage, the respondent came to her matrimonial house where she was not treated properly by the petitioner and his family members and it was apparent that they were not satisfied with the marriage and were expecting more dowry. The parents of the respondent were abused and when she objected she was mercilessly assaulted and for the said reason she went into depression. In the month of January, 2009, all the ornaments and educational certificates of the respondent were snatched by the petitioner and his mother. After a few days she was again tortured both mentally and physically and a demand of Rs.2,00,000/- was made and she was threatened that failure to bring the said amount will lead to her ouster from her matrimonial house. She was also threatened that her inlaws have good contacts with doctors which will be used in declaring her a mental patient after which she will be sent to a mental hospital. It has been stated that the respondent had on several occasions 3 First Appeal No. 4 of 2019 intimated the petitioner about the torture and agony she is facing but instead of resolving the issue the petitioner had put the entire blame upon the respondent. The petitioner himself is a mental patient as the petitioner had on several occasions forced her to indulge in unnatural sex and whenever she opposed she was abused and assaulted. When the incidents of torture were informed to the father and uncle of the respondent the petitioner and his family members became violent and adopted different modes of torture upon her. When the matter could not be settled, the respondent under compelling circumstances gave a written representation to the Mahila P.S. and although a counselling was going on the petitioner in the midst of the same has filed the instant suit. At the time of marriage, the respondent was a Post Graduate student but the petitioner and his family members did not allow her to complete her course. The respondent has denied the allegations that she was exuding an abnormal and aggressive behavior and that she was treated at RINPAS where it was diagnosed that she was suffering from some kind of mental disorder. 6. framed:- On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were (I) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (II) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action? (III) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty and deserted him? (IV) Whether the petitioner taking advantage of his own wrong? (V) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce? (VI) To what relief or reliefs the petitioner is entitled? The following issue was recast and numbered as issue no. (V). (V) Whether the respondent is suffering from incurable mental disorder? The petitioner has examined as many as five witnesses in support of his 7. case. P.W-1-Ashish Kumar Singh is the nephew of the petitioner who has stated about the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on 7.12.2008 at Ranchi. On the next day, the respondent came to reside with the petitioner at the residence of the petitioner situated at 18 A.G. Colony, Kadru, Ranchi. On that day, everyone was taking rest having been exhausted due to the marriage ceremony when all of a sudden the respondent started shouting which left everyone perturbed. He had seen the father of the respondent come to his house on 8.12.2008 who asked them to take the respondent to a doctor. Even after returning from the doctor, she was not found to be in a normal state. On 9.12.2008, a reception was organized and the respondent was found in a 4 First Appeal No. 4 of 2019 disturbed state and in the function she started shouting and tearing off her hair at which she was taken inside the house. He had come to know that the respondent is a mental patient. She used to injure her hands with fingernails and would also sit for hours together at a particular place. She also suddenly used to assault the inmates of the house without any rhyme or reason. She used to mutter something to herself. He had come to know that the respondent was treated from before at RINPAS. One of his friends who is a neighbor of the parents of the respondent had disclosed that the respondent is suffering from mental disorder since long. In cross-examination, he has deposed that had not met the respondent before marriage though his uncles, aunts and other relatives had met her once. The function of Jaymala was smoothly completed. The respondent had also completed the customary rituals at her matrimonial house. He has deposed that the respondent is a mental patient for which a certificate was also issued by a doctor of RINPAS. It is false to allege that the respondent was subjected to torture at her matrimonial house. He is aware about a criminal case instituted by the respondent against the petitioner. P.W-2-Vijay Kumar Yaji is a friend of the petitioner who has stated about the solemnization of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on 7.12.2008. It is a fact that the respondent is a patient of mental disorder since before marriage. On the second day of the marriage, he had seen the respondent shouting loudly, abusing everyone and pulling her hairs which perturbed all those who were present. On the same day, the father of the respondent had come and gave an advice to get the respondent treated by a renowned doctor. At this, the petitioner and the father of the respondent took the respondent to Dr. Shekhar Sinha who gave medicines and advised them to get the respondent treated by a Psychiatrist. Even on 9.12.2008 at the reception, the respondent had started shouting loudly and abused her parents and brother and sister as well as the petitioner and his family members at which everyone became disturbed. He frequently visits the house of the petitioner and whenever he met the respondent he never found her to be in a normal state. He has been a witness to the abnormal behavior of the respondent. When he and the petitioner had gone to the parental house of the respondent whenever she resided there he had found her to be always suffering from anxiety and abusing her father. The elder brother of the respondent is also a mental patient which was disclosed to him by a person in the locality as well as the father of the respondent. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he was present at the time of wedding of the petitioner and the respondent. He had never visited a Psychiatrist 5 First Appeal No. 4 of 2019 along with the petitioner and the respondent. It is not a fact that the respondent is absolutely in a fit mental state. P.W-3-Ashutosh Kumar is the petitioner who has stated that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 7.12.2008 as per Hindu Rites and
Legal Reasoning
Customs. The marriage could not be successful as the respondent is a patient of mental disorder. At the time of Jaymala he had noticed that the respondent had placed the garland in his neck with the assistance of her relatives. On 7.12.2008 at the time of marriage, he could feel that the respondent was in a confused state. After the marriage was solemnized they came to their place of residents and since everyone was tired and were taking rest when all of a sudden he had heard shouting and when he rushed to the room where the respondent was staying he found her abusing his family members. She was sometimes crying, sometimes laughing and was pulling her hairs. When the father of the respondent was informed he had come and the respondent was taken to Dr. Shekhar Sinha in the evening who had prescribed medicines but there was no improvement. Dr. Shekhar Sinha had recommended the name of Dr. Vinod Singh who is a Psychiatrist in order to get the respondent treated. During the reception, the respondent was brought to the stage where she started shouting and exuded unnatural behavior. The respondent never showed normal behavior and also used to tear her cloths. He has stated that on 14.2.2009, seeing the condition of the respondent, her father had taken her to his house for treatment. On 23.2.2009, her father had taken her to Psychiatrist Dr. P.K. Choudhary. During Chhath Puja on 25.10.2009, the respondent had come to his house and her behavior was abnormal even then. The respondent had once again returned to her parents’ house to attend the marriage ceremony of her younger sister. The elder brother of the respondent is also a patient of mental disorder. The respondent was taken to RINPAS by her father for treatment on 10.12.2010 and he had also accompanied them and this visit to RINPAS was followed by several visits. Seeing the condition of the respondent a file was opened at RINPAS which reveals that the respondent is a patient of mental disorder. On 15.5.2011, the respondent had tried to flee from the house which was seen by the persons of the locality. The respondent also used to extend threats of ending her life. The father of the respondent on being informed took the respondent to his house on 20.7.2011 and from then on the respondent is staying at her parents’ house. The respondent had made complaints to the Women’s Commission as well as to the Mahila P.S. and a criminal case is pending before the Court of S.D.J.M. Ranchi. In cross-examination, he has deposed that prior to the marriage his family members had met the respondent. He has stated that Dr. Shekhar Sinha is a General Physician and Cardiologist. In Ext-1, it has nowhere been mentioned 6 First Appeal No. 4 of 2019 that the respondent is a mental patient. In Exts-2 to 2/g and 4 to 4/c it has also not been written that the respondent is a patient of mental illness. The mother of the respondent had died about one and half years prior to the marriage. He had not got the respondent treated by the doctor whose name was referred to by Dr. Shekhar Sinha. In none of the prescriptions given by the doctors, the symptoms of the respondent were noted. P.W-4-Dr. Ashok Kumar Nag is at present posted as a Medical Superintendent at RINPAS. He has proved the case record of the respondent which has been marked as Ext-5. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the respondent was suffering from depression. On going through the case record, it transpires that the disease of depression was curable and pursuant to her treatment, the respondent has fully recovered. To that effect, a certificate was also issued. The said certificate has been marked as Ext-A. P.W-5-Dr. Supriya Sonalika is the sister of the appellant who in her Examination in Chief has stated about the marriage and the incoherent and abnormal behavior of the respondent after marriage. She has primarily reiterated the statements of P.W-1 and P.W-3. In cross-examination, she has deposed that the brain of the respondent was examined clinically, pathologically and scientifically in her presence at RINPAS Ranchi, which report has already been produced before the Court. The respondent has examined two witnesses including herself. 8. R.W-1-Mahendra Prasad Singh is the father of the respondent who has stated that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with the petitioner on 7.12.2008 at Ranchi. When the respondent went to her matrimonial house she was not treated properly by her inlaws as they were not satisfied with the dowry given in marriage. The respondent is good in her studies and competent to do the household works. Though the respondent had enrolled herself in Ranchi University for doing M.A. in Political Science but her inlaws did not allow her to sit for the examination. The respondent never suffered from any mental disorder but on account of the torture meted out to her after marriage she went into depression and after treatment she has completely recovered. In cross-examination, he has denied that at the time of Jaymala, the respondent had become ill. He has also denied that he had come to the maternal house of the respondent on 8.12.2008 and that she was behaving abnormally. When the respondent was with him he had got her treated by Dr. P.K. Choudhary on the request of the petitioner and the treatment had continued for eight months. Dr. P.K. Choudhary had prescribed medicines relating to depression. He had taken the respondent to RINPAS for treatment and the petitioner had also 7 First Appeal No. 4 of 2019 accompanied them. He does not know in which file it has been noted “bipolar, reactive, psychopathic disorder”. R.W-2-Sunita Kumari Singh is the respondent who has stated that after solemnization of her marriage she had gone to her matrimonial house on 7.12.2008. She could feel that her inlaws were not satisfied with the dowry given in marriage. She has denied that she is a mental patient and that physical relationship was never established between them. After marriage, she had enrolled herself in Ranchi University for completing her M.A. in Political Science but her sister in laws prevented her to give her examination. When she was studying M.A. she had successfully completed field work in schools in different districts of Jharkhand under the aegis of Media Research Group of Delhi. She had also received certificates in various fields which have been marked as Exts- a to d with objections. She has stated that after committing torture upon her she was ousted from her matrimonial house and when she was not allowed to come back she had submitted a written application before the Mahila P.S. pursuant to which her husband had to appear before Mahila P.S. In the year 2013 regular counselling were held between her and her husband before the Mahila P.S. but in the midst of such counselling, the suit for divorce was filed. It is incorrect to allege that she is suffering from mental disorder from before and that there is no possibility of the same being cured. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she was taken to RINPAS by her father and husband. She has denied that she was not in a normal mental state at the time of Jaymala. After her mother’s death she went into a shock but later on recovered. On 8.12.2008, she was taken for treatment to Dr. Shekhar Sinha though she was not suffering from any illness. She had disclosed to Dr. Shekhar Sinha her problem at which it was said that everything is normal and the nervousness was on account of the marriage. She was under the treatment of Dr. Shekhar Sinha for a week. She has denied that her behavior in her matrimonial house was abnormal. The entire period during which she was under the treatment of Dr. P.K. Choudhary was spent at her parental house. Dr. P.K. Choudhary had opined that she is suffering from tension. In the year 2010, she was treated at RINPAS for normal depression. She is not taking any medicines at present. It is true that after the present suit was filed she had filed a complaint against her husband. 9. It has been submitted by Mr. Amresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, that the evidence of the petitioner clearly reveals that the respondent was suffering from a serious condition of mental disorder which was suppressed by the father of the respondent at the time of marriage. The respondent by virtue of her mental condition as diagnosed by the doctors and 8 First Appeal No. 4 of 2019 her conduct consequent to the same tantamounts to mental cruelty suffered by the petitioner at the hands of the respondent. It has been submitted that both the parties are residing separately for more than a decade and the marriage between them has also come to a dead end from where it cannot be retrieved but this fact was never properly appreciated by the learned court below. It has also been submitted that the respondent without any reasonable excuse had left her parental house and thus the issue of desertion has also been proved against the respondent. Mr. Amresh Kumar has also referred to the various prescriptions and medical history of the respondent while emphasizing that the respondent has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder which she is suffering from since long and the petitioner cannot be reasonably expected to live with the respondent particularly in the backdrop of her incoherent and abnormal behavior which had started from the day of the marriage itself. Learned counsel has also submitted that so far as the criminal case instituted against the petitioner is concerned, the same itself is a counter blast to the suit filed by the petitioner. 10. Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned amicus curiae, has submitted that the petitioner/appellant in his plaint and through his witnesses has tried to project the respondent as a women who is suffering from serious mental disorder which is incurable and due to which it would not be reasonably expected for the appellant to continue his marital life with the respondent. This according to Mrs. Shalini is a figment of imagination and is contrary to the documentary evidence. It has been submitted that the medical record reveals of the respondent suffering from a mild version of mental illness which was triggered by the death of her mother and a diagnosis in treatment has led the doctors to conclude that she can lead a normal life. It has been stated that instead of nurturing the respondent back to a normal health condition it was the respondent who had committed torture upon her and was instrumental in her ouster from her matrimonial house. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the Lower Court Records. 12. which forms the nucleus of the suit. 13. Issue Nos. (iii) and (iv) are of utmost importance since these are the issues It is not in dispute that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 7.12.2009. As per the petitioner, the first instance of the mental condition of the respondent could be gathered at the time of Jaymala as basically she had to be propped up by the others to complete the formalities. The behavior of the respondent became stark on 8.12.2008 when she entered into her matrimonial house and in course of time it became more pronounced. Instances of her brittle mental state has been highlighted in the plaint and in the evidence adduced by the appellant. The respondent being 9 First Appeal No. 4 of 2019 confronted with such allegations has denied them and has stated about the torture committed upon her by the appellant and her inlaws due to insufficiency of dowry given by her father. She has admitted about her treatment by Dr. Shekhar Sinha, Dr. P.K. Choudhary and at RINPAS. We have to gather from the evidence available on record as to whether the mental status of the respondent was such that it would be impossible for the appellant to resume conjugal life with her. The medical documents which have been exhibited are of utmost significance as it gives an expert opinion on the state of mental illness of the respondent. The prescriptions of Dr. Shekhar Sinha and Dr. P.K. Choudhary do not disclose much about the exact diagnosis of the illness suffered by the respondent though various medicines have been prescribed. Ext-5 is the record file of the respondent maintained by RINPAS. The clinical history of the respondent reveals that her symptoms of mental illness started after the death of her mother in February, 2008. As the respondent was very close to her mother the pain she suffered on her death was intense. The impression on diagnosis of the patient and the tests carried out as per the report dated 25.4.2011 is as follows. “On the basis of chief complaints, current mental status examination, clinical observation and test findings, Mrs. Sunita Singh is having mild level of depression at present”. The psychological evaluation report dated 16.2.2012 reads as follows. “ On the basis of clinical history, M.S.E. test behavior and test findings, Mrs. Sunita Singh is a case of bipolar effective disorder currently in remission. She is currently having no active psychotic factors”. The same finding was noted in the report dated 16.11.2012. Ext-A is a certificate issued by the Medical Superintendent, RINPAS, Ranchi dated 18.2.2012 wherein it has been mentioned “On the basis of mental status examination and psychological evaluation, she has no active psychopathology at present. She is fit to continue her normal routine works”. 14. The reports quoted above runs contrary to what has been stated by the witnesses of the appellant including the appellant himself. A bleak picture was painted by the appellant regarding the mental stability of the respondent but it seems that the incoherent and unnatural behavior of the respondent as alleged by the appellant is exaggerated. The clinical history of the respondent does show that on account of the sudden demise of the mother of the respondent she developed certain symptoms of mental illness on account of anxiety and went into mild depression. The report further indicates that continuous treatment and regular intake of medicines have improved her situation and she is fit to continue her normal routine. 15. Section 13 (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads as follows:- “13. Divorce.—(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the 10 First Appeal No. 4 of 2019 commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party— [(i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or (i-a) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or (i-b) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or] (ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or [(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. Explanation.—In this clause,— (a) the expression “mental disorder” means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia; (b) the expression “psychopathic disorder” means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub-normality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; or]” Sub Section (iii) envisages mental disorder of such a level and to such an extent that the appellant cannot be reasonably expected to live with the respondent. 16. Though the appellant has taken recourse primarily to Section 13(i)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but has miserably failed to prove that the mental disorder suffered by the respondent is of such an extent that he cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. It is no doubt true that the respondent was suffering from a mild degree of mental disorder perhaps appearing in the horizon due to the sudden death of her mother, diagnosed later at RINPAS as bipolar effective disorder which was on remission and was not having any active psychotic factors. The appellant should have with all the more sincerity taken care of the respondent as the end result shows that she can live a normal life. The ingredients for getting a decree of divorce under section 13(i)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 having not been fulfilled , issue No. (v) has correctly been decided against the appellant. 17. So far as the issue of mental cruelty is concerned, the same is correlated with issue no. (v) and since issue no. (v) has been decided against the appellant this issue is also decided against him. 11 First Appeal No. 4 of 2019 18. It appears that the respondent has filed a criminal case against the appellant during the pendency of the suit, which is still pending in which torture and her ouster from her matrimonial house has been alleged. In her written statement as well as in her evidence as R.W-2 she has stated about the torture committed upon her due to insufficiency in the dowry articles brought by her and her ultimate ouster from her matrimonial house. The appellant has failed to prove that the desertion was without reasonable cause so as to come within the ambit of Section 13 (i)(1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Issue No. (iii) also needs no interference by us. 19. As a consequence to the discussions made hereinabove, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) (Deepak Roshan, J) Rakesh/-