Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Case law- Section 10(1)(b) - Trimbak Narayan Bhagwat vs. Kumudini Trimbak Bhagwat
Bench: Justice N.B. Naik.
Facts:
- The parties got married in 1949. At that time, Trimbak Narayan Bhagwat, herein the Appellant was a partner at a partnership firm, which suffered losses and got shut in 1952, due to disputes between the partners.
- The Appellant had a mental set back owing to his prolonged unemployment and strained financial circumstances. He had to undergo treatment at a mental hospital for 5 months but he did not recover completely. He would have altercations with Kumudini Trimbak Bhagwat, herein the Respondent for no reason.
- He was again admitted to the mental hospital but after his discharge, he continued to be erratic, eccentric and moody. The Respondent tried to strangulate his brother in-lawwhile he was sleeping andhis own sonon another occasion, by pouncing on him.
- After this incident, the Appellant was sent to the mental hospital for the third time. The Respondent left the matrimonial home before the discharge of the Appellant from the hospital, apprehending danger to her life due to his abnormal behaviour.
- Thereafter, the wife filed a petition for judicial separation under Section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(herein after referred to as the “Act”) on the ground that Appellant has wilfully deserted her for over the statutory period and has treated her with such cruelty as to cause reasonable apprehension in her mind that it is harmful for her to live with him.
Issues:
- Whether the maxim actus non facitreum nisi mens sit rea apply to the definition of cruelty under matrimonial law?
- Whetherinsanity affords defence to the plea of cruelty?
Contentions of the Appellant:
- The Appellant was admitted to the mental hospital thrice on the ground that his mind was deranged.
- The Appellant denied that he was brooding over his affairs or that he was moody or eccentric.
- The Appellant had no intention to treat the Respondent with cruelty she could not understand the nature of his actions under the fits of insanity.
- The medical reports of the Appellant prove that he was suffering from Schizophrenia, a case of split personality.
Contentions of the Respondent:
- The Appellant did not permit the Respondent to take up a job even in times of financial difficulties faced by the family as he had his own peculiar notions as to how a wife should behave towards husband.
- The Respondent's wife has put up with all possible hardships and privations for a long period of six years in her marital home.
- The Appellant displayed abnormal behaviour towards the Respondent and their children born out of the marriage making her reasonably apprehend danger to her life and her children.
Background:
The Trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the wife for judicial separation under section 10(1)(b) of the Act, on the ground that the cruel behaviour of the Appellant did not amount to “legal cruelty” as it took place during the Appellant's insanity. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and held that the conduct of the husband amounted to legal cruelty sufficient for the Respondent to apprehend that it was not safe for her to remain in the matrimonial home. Aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Court, the Appellant herein approached the High Court for second appeal which pronounced its judgment below.
Judgment:
The High Court while deliberating upon various judgments under the English and Indian law on the point of insanity, ruled that the defence of insanity is not available against cruelty in most matrimonial cases. Even if the offending spouse is not capable of knowing what he/she is doing, the conduct can be amount to mental cruelty regardless of motive or intention to be cruel.
Dismissing the appeal of the husband, the Court held that the apprehensions in the mind of the Respondent were well founded even though the Appellant was not aware of the nature of the acts that he was committing. Even when the Appellant had no intention commit such cruel acts, his actions amounted to mental cruelty beyond the endurance of the wife. The defence that the Appellant was schizophrenic was not accepted against the plea of cruelty alleged by the Respondent.
