2001 JTR(SC) 829
2001 AIR(SC) 2110 ; 2001 AIR(SCW) 1820 ; 2001 5 ALD(SC) 40 ; 2001 2 AllCJ 1163 ; 2001 45 AllLR 515 ; 2001 5 ALT(SC) 23 ; 2002 4 AWC 2932 ; 2002 Supp BomCR(SC) 631 ; 2001 DNJ 268 ; 2001 1 JCC 337 ; 2001 2 JLJR(SC) 308 ; 2001 Supp1 JT 213 ; 2001 2 OLR 93 ; 2001 4 PLJR(SC) 46 ; 2001 3 PLR(SC) 34 ; 2001 3 RCR(Civ) 192 ; 2001 2 RLW(Raj) 326 ; 2001 3 Scale 579 ; 2001 4 SCC 688 ; 2001 3 SCR 329 ; 2001 2 UJ 793 ; 2001 WLC 492 ; 2001 KHC 1091 ; 2001 5 Supreme 520
2001(5) Supreme 520
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
D. P. Mohapatra & U.C. Banerjee, JJ.
R. Lakshmi Narayan -Appellant
versus
Santhi -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5028 of 1999
Decided on 1-5-2001.
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : V. Prabhakar, Ms. Revathy Raghavan and Rakesh Garg, Advocates.
For the Respondent : A.T.M. Sampath, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because wife is suffering from some mental disorder and there was no cohabitation between spouses is not sufficent to make out a case u/s 5(ii)(b) of Hindu Marriage Act which could be sufficent to invoke declaration u/s 12(1)(b) of the Act.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.100
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
EVIDENCE ACT : S.101(1), S.101, S.102
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT : S.12(1)(b), S.5(ii)(b)
(A) The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5(ii) and 12(1)(b), read with the Evidence Act and Civil Procedure Code, governs the solemnity and validity of a marriage based on the mental capacity and consent of the parties at the time of marriage. Section 5(ii) mandates that neither party be suffering from a mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children, while Section 12(1)(b) provides that a marriage is voidable if it is in contravention of the conditions specified in Section 5. The High Court applied these provisions to assess whether the appellant had proven the respondents mental incapacity to the requisite standard, emphasizing the heavy burden on the petitioner and the necessity of clear evidence of a disorder rendering the respondent unfit for marital relationship or procreation. The evidentiary standards under the Evidence Act and the procedural posture under the Civil Procedure Code framed the Courts review of the trial and appellate findings.
(B) Key legal principles include that an objection to marriage on the ground of mental incapacity depends on the degree of the defect and rebuts the validity of a marriage already solemnized; the onus of proof lies heavily on the petitioner; mere findings of a mental disorder and lack of cohabitation are insufficient unless the disorder is of such a kind or extent that it amounts to unfitness for marriage and procreation; and the Court must be satisfied that the condition prescribed under Section 5(ii) is met before declaring a marriage voidable under Section 12(1)(b).
Facts of the case:
The parties were married according to Hindu rites in November 1987. After about 25 days of living together, they parted. The husband filed a petition seeking a declaration that the marriage was null and void on the ground that the wife suffered from chronic and incurable mental disorder and was unfit for marriage. The wife denied the allegations and claimed that they had lived harmoniously and that the husband sought a second marriage to obtain more dowry. The Trial Court dismissed the petition, the Appellate Court allowed it, and the High Court restored the Trial Courts judgment, holding that the husband had not proved that he was unaware of the wifes mental condition before the marriage.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the wife had been under treatment for a mental disorder before the marriage and that there had been no cohabitation for about a month, but it did not find that she suffered from a mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and procreation. The Court held that the husband had not rebutted the validity of the marriage, as the mere absence of cohabitation for a short period did not satisfy the requirements of Section 5(ii)(b).
Issues:
Whether the respondent was suffering from a mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and procreation within the meaning of Section 5(ii)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; whether the marriage is voidable under Section 12(1)(b); and whether the appellant succeeded in discharging the onus of proof required for annulment.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that Section 5(ii) requires that a party be suffering from a mental disorder that renders them unfit for marriage and procreation, and the onus on the petitioner is heavy; findings of a mental disorder and lack of cohabitation for a short period are insufficient unless the disorder is of such severity that it makes the party unfit for marital life, which was not established on the facts.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed without any order of costs.
(A) The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5(ii) and 12(1)(b), read with the Evidence Act and Civil Procedure Code, governs the solemnity and validity of a marriage based on the mental capacity and consent of the parties at the time of marriage. Section 5(ii) mandates that neither party be suffering from a mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children, while Section 12(1)(b) provides that a marriage is voidable if it is in contravention of the conditions specified in Section 5. The High Court applied these provisions to assess whether the appellant had proven the respondents mental incapacity to the requisite standard, emphasizing the heavy burden on the petitioner and the necessity of clear evidence of a disorder rendering the respondent unfit for marital relationship or procreation. The evidentiary standards under the Evidence Act and the procedural posture under the Civil Procedure Code framed the Courts review of the trial and appellate findings.
(B) Key legal principles include that an objection to marriage on the ground of mental incapacity depends on the degree of the defect and rebuts the validity of a marriage already solemnized; the onus of proof lies heavily on the petitioner; mere findings of a mental disorder and lack of cohabitation are insufficient unless the disorder is of such a kind or extent that it amounts to unfitness for marriage and procreation; and the Court must be satisfied that the condition prescribed under Section 5(ii) is met before declaring a marriage voidable under Section 12(1)(b).
Facts of the case:
The parties were married according to Hindu rites in November 1987. After about 25 days of living together, they parted. The husband filed a petition seeking a declaration that the marriage was null and void on the ground that the wife suffered from chronic and incurable mental disorder and was unfit for marriage. The wife denied the allegations and claimed that they had lived harmoniously and that the husband sought a second marriage to obtain more dowry. The Trial Court dismissed the petition, the Appellate Court allowed it, and the High Court restored the Trial Courts judgment, holding that the husband had not proved that he was unaware of the wifes mental condition before the marriage.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the wife had been under treatment for a mental disorder before the marriage and that there had been no cohabitation for about a month, but it did not find that she suffered from a mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and procreation. The Court held that the husband had not rebutted the validity of the marriage, as the mere absence of cohabitation for a short period did not satisfy the requirements of Section 5(ii)(b).
Issues:
Whether the respondent was suffering from a mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and procreation within the meaning of Section 5(ii)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; whether the marriage is voidable under Section 12(1)(b); and whether the appellant succeeded in discharging the onus of proof required for annulment.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that Section 5(ii) requires that a party be suffering from a mental disorder that renders them unfit for marriage and procreation, and the onus on the petitioner is heavy; findings of a mental disorder and lack of cohabitation for a short period are insufficient unless the disorder is of such severity that it makes the party unfit for marital life, which was not established on the facts.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed without any order of costs.
JUDGMENT
D.P. Mohapatra, J.-On analysis of the case of the parties and the contentions raised by learned Counsel on their behalf, the question that arises for determination is whether the appellant has established a case for declaring the marriage null and void under Section 12(1)(b) read with Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. The appellant is the husband of the respondent. They were married according to Hindu rites and rituals on 1.11.1987. It is relevant to note here that it was an arranged marriage and the decision was taken after the appellant had met the respondent and talked with her. After staying together for about 25 days the couple parted company. Thereafter the appellant filed a petition under Section 5(ii) read with Section 12(1)(b) on 12.2.1988 seeking a declaration that the marriage is null and void as the respondent suffers from chronic and incurable mental disorder and is not in a fit mental state to lead a married life. In support of his case the appellant alleged inter alia that on the night of the marriage he found respondent to be drowsy she refused to have cohabitation; on being questioned by him she said that she has been suffering from mental disorder since her childhood; she did not want to have any marriage relationship but under pressure from her parents the marriage with the appellant was performed. The appellant further alleged that when father of the respondent was informed about her physical and mental condition he disclosed that his daughter has been under treatment for some mental disease and gave the prescription given by the doctor. The appellant pleaded that he and his father made attempts for curing the respondent of the ailment suffered by her but such attempts proved futile. Under such compelling circumstances he filed the petition seeking the declaration that the marriage was null and void.
3. Respondent in her written statement refuted the allegations made in the petition/plaint. She denied that she suffered from any mental disorder, far less of a chronic and incurable nature. She also denied that she had no cohabitation with her husband or that she had expressed that she was not interested in leading married life. She asserted that immediately after the marriage she and her husband led a happy married life; they went to different places and visited temples. She also asserted that she has all along been ready and willing to lead a normal marital life with the appellant; but the appellant is interested in having a second marriage so that he may get more dowry. According to the respondent the reason for which she has not been able to lead a normal family life is on account of refusal of the appellant to share the marital relationship with her.
4. The Trial Court on assessing the evidence on record dismissed the petition filed by the appellant holding, inter alia, that he had failed to establish that the respondent was suffering from any mental disorder or that there was no cohabitation or that the respondent was not in a fit mental state to lead a married life. The Trial Court which had the privilege of observing the respondent as a witness and watching her demeanor made the following observations in the judgment :
"The respondent was examined in this Court from 11.25 a.m. to 1.25 p.m. During the enquiry, it did not appear from her activities that her mental condition and activities had been affected. She has given answer very clearly to the questions posed by the petitioner s Advocate. This Court is not a medical expert. But there was an opportunity to watch the activities and movements of the respondent. Since it is not proved from the activities and the letters of the respondent that she had incurable mental disease and since the marital relationship is fulfilled by the cohabitation between the petitioner and the respondent, it is decided that the respondent is fit for marital relationship and she is not affected by mental disease since the petition is filed within a year from 1.11.1987, the date of marriage, this petition is not sustainable under law and it is decided that this marriage is not fit to be declared null and void."
5. On appeal by the appellant the Appellate Court found fault with the judgment of the Trial Court on the ground that the trial Judge had not considered the documentary evidence in the case including the prescription issued by Dr. Papa Kumari of Chennai. The Court held that within a few days of the marriage the spouses had parted company and thereafter there has been no meeting between them. The Appellate Court accepted the case of the appellant that there was no cohabitation between the parties to the marriage. Taking note of certain statements made by the respondent in her evidence the Appellate Court found that she has admitted that she has been suffering from a mental disorder from her childhood; that she was given injection once in a month and used to take drugs whenever she had headache. On such findings the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and allowed the petition filed by the appellant.
6. The second appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by the High Court, the judgment of the First Appellate Court was reversed and the judgment of the Trial Court was restored. The High Court, as appears on perusal of the judgment, mainly considered the question whether the appellant was aware of the physical and mental disorder of the respondent before the marriage. The High Court held that the marriage was not vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation. The appellant (husband) had opportunity to meet the respondent (wife) and to know her physical and mental condition. The Court did not accept the case of the appellant that the respondent was suffering from chronic and incurable mental disorder and that there was no cohabitation between the parties.
7. The appellant husband has filed this appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution, assailing the judgment of the High Court.
8. Since the decision in the case depends on interpretation of Sections 5(ii)(a) and (b) and Section 12(1)(b) the said sections are quoted hereunder for convenience of reference :
"5. Conditions for a Hindu Marriage-A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely :
(i) xxx xxx xxx
(ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party-
(a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or
(b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children;
12. Voidable Marriage-(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely -
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
(b) that the marriage is in contravention of the conditions specified in Clause (ii) of Section 5."
9. Section 5 provides that a marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus if the conditions specified in the section are fulfilled. Amongst the other conditions stated therein in sub-section (ii) it is laid down that at the time of marriage neither party is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind or though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children. The clause lays down as one of the conditions for a Hindu marriage that neither party must be suffering from unsoundness of mind, mental disorder, insanity or epilepsy and Section 12(1)(b) refers that any marriage shall be violable and may be annulled if the marriage is in contravention of the condition specified in Clause (ii) of Section 5. On a plain reading of the said provision it is manifest that the conditions prescribed in that section, if established, disentitles the party to a valid marriage. The marriage is not per se void but voidable under the clause. Such conditions in the very nature of things call for strict standard of proof. The onus of proof is very heavy on the party who approaches the Court for breaking a marriage already solemnized.
10. An objection to a marriage on the ground of mental incapacity must depend on a question of degree of the defect in order to rebut the validity of a marriage which has in fact taken place. As noted earlier, the onus of bringing a case under this clause lies heavily on the petitioner who seeks annulment of the marriage on the ground of unsoundness of mind or mental disorder. The Court will examine the matter with all possible care and anxiety.
11. Bearing in mind the principles which flow from a fair reading of the statutory provisions noted above we proceed to examine whether the appellant has succeeded in establishing the case for declaring the marriage null and void on the ground of mental incapacity of his wife at the time of marriage. Even accepting the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court which decided the case in favour of the appellant as correct then the position that emerges is that the respondent has been under treatment for some mental problem before the marriage; and that there was no cohabitation between the parties during the period of about one month during which they stayed together. On these findings can it be held that a case for declaring the marriage to be invalid under Section 12(1)(b) read with Section 5(ii)(b) has been established. It is not the case of the appellant that the respondent was incapable of giving valid consent to the marriage in consequence of unsoundness of mind at the time of marriage. From the facts found by the Appellate Court it cannot be held that the respondent has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and procreation of children. To draw such an inference merely from the fact that the spouses had no cohabitation for a short period of about a month, is neither reasonable nor permissible. To brand the wife as unfit for marriage and procreation of children on account of the mental disorder it needs to be established that the ailment suffered by her is of such a kind or such an extent that it is impossible for her to lead a normal married life. This is the requirement of the law as appears on fair reading of the statutory provisions. The Appellate Court has also not specifically given such a finding. Merely giving a finding that the respondent was suffering from some mental disorder and she did not have cohabitation with her husband during the period they stayed together is not sufficient to comply with the condition prescribed under Section 5(ii)(b) of the Act. We deem it relevant to note here that the observations in the judgment of the Trial Court about the physical and mental condition of the respondent which have been noted earlier indicates the position that the requirement of Section 5(ii)(b) are far from satisfied from the materials placed by the appellant. In the circumstances the High Court cannot be faulted for having dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Section 12(1)(b) read with Section 5(ii)(b) of the Act. The judgment of the High Court is no doubt far from satisfactory. The High Court has not formulated any question of law in the judgment which is a mandatory requirement under Section 100, CPC. The High Court has also not considered the relevant aspects of the matter other than fraud and misrepresentation about mental condition of the respondent on the part of her parents at the time of the marriage. We have considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant to remit the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal. We, however, in the facts as above, do not feel it expedient to do so. Our attention has not been drawn to any material on record which, if considered, would have tilted the balance in favour of the appellant. It is our considered view that on the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials placed on record this is not a fit case for interfering with the judgment of the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
12. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without any order of costs.
(N.K.R.) Appeal dismissed.
***************