The meaning of expression "mental disorder" has been used in Explanation (a) to Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which reads as under:
"(a) the expression "mental disorder"means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopanthic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia."
The appellant tried to produce the evidence of the Medical Officer who only brought the Register and said that her name was entered only once in the register. It appears that if it is taken as true, mentioning the name of respondent in the register for one time in the whole 24 years of her age, would not be sufficient to hold that she was suffering from "mental disorder" within the meaning of Expression (a) of clause (iii) of Sub- section (1) of Section 13 of the Act, 1955 and the allegation of cruelty and misbehaviour on the part of respondent wife would not arise.
Chattisgarh High Court
Khumesh Deshmukh vs Smt Padmini Desmukh on 26 August, 2010
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2009 passed by the II Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(a)(b) of Hindu Marriage Act.
2. It is not disputed that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 20th of May 2005 according to the Hindu customs. The ground taken in the petition for divorce was that the respondent wife was suffering from mental disorder, therefore, her conduct complained of amounts to cruelty. Learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court dismissed the suit and fixed Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance for life time and Rs.4000/- as expenses.
3. No cross examination to this appeal has been filed on behalf of the respondent.
4. The meaning of expression "mental disorder" has been used in Explanation (a) to Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which reads as under:
"(a) the expression "mental disorder"means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopanthic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia."
5. The appellant tried to produce the evidence of the Medical Officer who only brought the Register and said that her name was entered only once in the register. It appears that if it is taken as true, mentioning the name of respondent in the register for one time in the whole 24 years of her age, would not be sufficient to hold that she was suffering from "mental disorder" within the meaning of Expression (a) of clause (iii) of Sub- section (1) of Section 13 of the Act, 1955 and the allegation of cruelty and misbehaviour on the part of respondent wife would not arise.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also urged that the evidence of the parents of the appellant shows that by virtue of her behaviour she was not upto the mark. Even if it is taken to be true for the sake of argument, it cannot be said that because of the behaviour, respondent was a mentally disordered person.
7. In case of Smt. Mayadevi V. Jagdish Prasad, AIR 2007 S.C. 1426 it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the concept, a proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see that what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. Courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial matters. It has also been held that in the matter of divorce, the alleged cruelty or conduct must be grave and weighty and must lead to conclusion that petitioning spouse cannot be expected to live with other. Therefore, in such cases, the Court's approach while assessing gravity of conduct should not be too hyper- sensitive. It has been further held that to constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be "grave and weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than "ordinary wear and tear of married life". The conduct taking into consideration the circumstances and the back ground has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered in the back ground of several factors as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. All quarrels must be weighed from that point of view. A too technical hyper-sensitive approach would be counter-productive to the institution of marriage.
8. In view of the above, this appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that this court may enhance the amount of monthly maintenance. In the absence of cross objection to appeal, we are not inclined to pass any order in this regard.
10. Accordingly, this appeal stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment