DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
24th December 2021
JUDGES:
Justice Vipin Sanghi
Justice Jasmeet Singh
PARTIES:
Petitioner (s): Sandeep Agarwal
Respondent (s): Priyanka Agarwal
SUBJECT
In the present case, the High Court of Delhi declared that failure on the wife's part to disclose her mental disorder before her marriage constitutes fraud on the husband and the same is a valid ground for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act and the court can also draw an adverse inference against a party for their denial of examination by Medical Board if circumstances demand the same.
OVERVIEW
1. In the present case. an appeal had been filed before the High Court of Delhi by the appellant under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 24th December 2019 of the Family Court, Dwarka where the court dismissed the petition of the husband made under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage at, 1955 which deals with Voidable Marriages.
2. The relevant facts of the case are as such:
a) The appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife) got married on 10th December 2005, and as per the appellant, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was the outcome of a ‘calculated fraud’ as the appellant alleged that the respondent was suffering from mental health/ailment and same was disclosed by the respondent and her family before the marriage.
b) As per the appellant, the respondent was, before the marriage and after the marriage when they stayed together, suffering from Acute Schizophrenia. The appellant took the respondent to multiple hospitals but no improvement was seen as per the petitioner.
c) When the appellant and other family members questioned the father of the respondent, she was taken back to her parental home on 17th February 2006, roughly 9 weeks after the marriage. Since then the respondent has lived there and the appellant claims that their marriage was not even consummated.
d) The respondent in her written statement denied the allegations that her marriage wasn’t consummated or she was suffering from physical or mental ailment. However, the respondent admitted that due to severe headaches she had to discontinue her college, and the said facts were duly conveyed to the appellant, the mediator, and other family members.
e) The respondent further submitted that the appellant and his family members had met the respondent multiple times before the marriage, namely at Lakshminarayana (Birla) Mandir, during their ring ceremony, where the appellant spent around an hour exclusively with the respondent. After the ring ceremony, when the appellant along with his sister-in-law ‘had discussions with the respondent at Pizza Hut, Netaji Subhash Marg, New Delhi.’ The respondent had also denied that the appellant had ever been taken to any hospital for treatment of any ailment.
f) The respondent had also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights against the appellant which, vide order dated 30th October 2009 of the Family Court, had been clubbed with the divorce petition.
3. The Family Court after analysing the arguments for both the petitioner and the respondent concluded that:
a) The petitioner had failed to prove that the respondent was suffering from acute schizophrenia before the marriage or that the consent for marriage was obtained by concealing any ailment.
b) The family court greatly relied on the behaviour of the respondent during her cross-examination. The Court noted, “the conduct of the respondent exhibited by her during cross-examination does not show that she was not a normal lady or was suffering from schizophrenia or any other mental disorder. She understood all the questions put to her during cross-examination and answered these questions appropriately.”
c) The Court further noted that the appellant and his family members had interacted plenty of times with the respondent after the sagai that was held 4 months before the marriage. The brother of the appellant even claims that the respondent behaved properly and even danced during the God Bharai ceremony.
d) The court in the end noted that the appellant had taken the respondent to 5 doctors within 1 month. The appellant didn’t wait to observe the result of the treatment of any doctor and had only taken the respondent from one doctor to another without giving any medicine to the respondent. The court concluded that “it appears that the petitioner was only getting prepared these medical prescriptions to show that respondent was suffering from some ailment without any treatment being provided to the respondent.” Hence, the petition was dismissed by the Family Court.
4. The counsel for the petitioner in the appeal before the high court submitted that the accumulated evidence by the petitioner supports the finding that the Respondent was/is suffering from “F-20– Hebephrenia”. The counsel submitted multiple prescriptions that diagnosed the Respondent with either F-20- Hebephrenia or Schizophrenia. Further, the counsel for the appellant explained various medical literature on Schizophrenia and Hebephrenia, as well as the literature on the medicines prescribed for these ailments.
5. The counsel for the petitioner also relied on the findings of Dr. Inderjeet Sharma (PW-6), Dr. Rajiv Mehta (PW-5), and Dr. Mamta Sood (PW-7):
a) Dr. Rajiv Mehta (PW-5) testified that the prescription dated 28th January 2006 was in fact in his handwriting. He further stated that the provisional diagnosis of the patient respondent was about Schizophrenia, and the respondent was called on three different occasions.
b) Dr. Mamta Sood [(PW-7)(a psychiatrist)] of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), who, after examining the Respondent’s behaviour opined that the Respondent is suffering from Hebephrenia. The doctor also prescribed medicines for the same.
6. The Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the courts are ‘ill-equipped to weigh, analyse and arrive at definite findings of mental condition/illness of a litigant on their own.’ Hence, the Respondent must be examined by a Board of Medical experts in the field, to ascertain the actual medical condition of the respondent as different submissions had been made by the respondent and the appellant. The counsel relied on the judgment in the case of Sharda v. Dharmpal to submit that ‘the Court can always direct examination by a medical expert, to arrive at the truth.’
7. In the light of the judgment in Sharda V. Dharam Pal the court asked the counsel for the respondent, whether the respondent would be ready and willing to subject herself to examination by a Medical Board of specialists but the same was refused by the counsel objecting thatit would amount to cruelty on the respondent.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
- Section9- Restitution of conjugal right.
- Section 12- Voidable Marriages.
- Section 19- Court to which petition shall be presented.
- Section 28-Appeals from decrees and orders.
ISSUES
- Whether the respondent was/is suffering from Schizophrenia?
- If yes, can the marriage be declared void in light of section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act?
JUDGMENT
1. The court after analysing all the material facts of the cause firstly noted how judges are not medical experts and for the court to adjudicate in such issues there is a need for credible medical experts. However, ‘the outright refusal of the respondent to undergo any medical examination, prevents the court arriving at the truth.’
2. The court then went on to note certain excerpts from the judgment in Dharampal (Supra) that were relevant to the case in hand:
‘Keeping in view of the fact that in a case of mental illness the Court has adequate power to examine the party or get him examined by a qualified doctor, we believe that in an appropriate case the Court may take recourse to such a procedure even at the instance of the party to the lis. Furthermore, the Court must be held to have the requisite power even under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to issue such direction either suo motu or otherwise which, according to him, would lead to the truth.’
‘If despite an order passed by the Court, a person refuses to submit himself to such medical examination, a strong case for drawing an adverse inference would be made out Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act also enables a Court to draw an adverse inference if the party does not produce the relevant pieces of evidence in his power an possession.’
3. Examining the material facts of the case, the court made various presumptions against the accused in light of the judgment in the case of Dharampal (Supra):
a) The court noted the fact that the respondent suffered from headaches during her college days and the same lead to the discontinuation of her studies. Furthermore, the court noted how the reason for the headaches never came to light or was even diagnosed which made it impossible to figure out the nature of the headaches. This could raise the possibility of mental disorder as the appellant alleged.
b) The refusal by the respondent to undergo a medical examination by the Medical Board of experts leads to the inference that she was not prepared to face the Medical Board as that could have exposed the condition of her mental well-being, and would have established the allegation made by the appellant that she was suffering from Schizophrenia. Moreover, a spouse–who claimed to be not suffering from any mental ailment had preferred a petition to seek restitution of conjugal rights and expressed her desire to live with the appellant-husband raised suspicion as to her mental state.
4. The court further noted that, although the burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove his case, all the parties must cooperate for the court to ensure justice. The outright refusal by counsel of the Respondent to subject the Respondent to medical examination leaves the situation at a stalemate and prevents the court from arriving at a definite conclusion.
5. The Court in the end noted that the family court has erred in its decision to not consider the petition of the appellant to appoint a medical board for analysing the mental state of the respondent as the same could have been a reasonable step to further the justice.
6. For the above-said reasons, the court drew an adverse inference against the Respondent that she is suffering from Schizophrenia and therefore, the court annulled the marriage between the appellant and the respondent on the ground contained in Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
CONCLUSION
The court in this judgment exercised its power to draw an adverse inference against the party due to their refusal of examination by medical board if the circumstances demand the same. Such inferences are also sufficient to annul a marriage under Hindu Marriage Act.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
