Top News Headlines 27th Dec 2021: Concealment Of Mental Disorder On Wife’s Part Constitutes Fraud

Concealment Of Mental Disorder On Wife’s Part Constitutes Fraud: Delhi HC Annuls Marriage

• The Delhi HC has annulled a sixteen year old marriage under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act wherein the wife did not disclose her mental illness to her husband before her marriage. The Court held that this concealment amounts to fraud.
• The present appeal to the HC was filed contesting the order of the trial court where the court had not accepted the contentions of the husband and did not annul the marriage between him and his wife and had dismissed the same.
• The husband contended that the marriage was the result of a fraud which was perpetuated by the wife and her family members. She was suffering from Acute Schizophrenia and was diagnosed with the same by many doctors who had examined her during the course of the marriage when they had lived together. The husband also claimed that their marriage had not been consummated.
• He further contended that she behaved in a very erratic manner, both during her stay in the matrimonial home and on their honeymoon.
• The Court laid great emphasis on the fact that the respondent (wife) denied a medical examination done by an independent Medical Board which would be appointed by the Court, all this while she had pleaded for a restitution of conjugal rights and had expressed her desire to live with her husband. The Court observed thus,

“The Courts, to be able to decide such issues, need expert opinion from credible persons in the field. The parties are also entitled to the grant of an opportunity to either support, or challenge the opinion that the experts may give after examination of the persons concerned, and all other relevant materials. However, what weighs with us is the denial of the respondent to subject herself to evaluation of her condition by an independent Medical Board to be appointed by the Court.”

• The Court, while agreeing to the fact that medical opinion is not a conclusive piece of evidence, also said that the fact that the wife suffered from unexplained headaches, coupled with the medical documents, all point to the fact that the wife was indeed suffering from schizophrenia, and that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the husband’s contentions.
• In conclusion, the court while annulling the marriage observed-
• “The appellant has significantly discharged his onus by leading cogent evidence, and raise a preponderance of probability that the respondent is suffering from schizophrenia… the failure on the part of the respondent to disclose her mental disorder before her marriage to the appellant- as alleged by him, constituted a fraud perpetrated upon the appellant.”
• The Court also granted the appellant a sum of Rs.10,000 for the pain that he had to go through for 16 years while he was forced to stay in such a marriage with no resolution. He has remained stuck in this relationship, where he would have otherwise been able to enjoy marital bliss, had it not been for the obstinacy shown not only by the respondent-wife, but also her father.

Read the above article thoroughly? Let’s see if you can answer the following in the comment section below-

A plea for the restitution of conjugal rights can be filed under which section of the Hindu Marriage Act?

Absence Of Physical Resistance Does Not Amount To Consent: Madras HC

• While upholding the decision of the Trial Court and the lower appellate court, the Hon’ble Madras HC has reiterated what the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated many times, that the absence of physical resistance in rape cases does not, of itself, turn the woman from a victim to an accomplice.
• The Court, in the present case of Gopi @ Saravanan vs State and Anr. the Hon’ble Court, while referring to Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act said that there is a presumption to the effect that the court will presume that the victim did not consent, if she says that she did not consent. To rebut the same, the defence will have to lead cogent evidence on their part which shows the presence of the prosecutrix’s consent. Incidentally, merely because the victim did not violently protest against the same does not signify her consent.
• In the instant case, the victim was subjected to rape at the age of 17 years, which was witnessed by her brother, who also tried to confront the accused. He was later examined as the prosecution witness.
• The trial court as well as the Sessions Court, in light of the medical and forensic evidence and also the statement of the prosecution witness(brother) were convinced of the guilt of the accused. He was thus sentenced to undergo 7 years of rigorous imprisonment.
• The HC relied on the judgement of the Punjab and Haryana HC in the case of Rao Harnarain Singh and Ors. vs. State in which it was held that “mere submission does not amount to consent”.
• The accused had also pleaded for a reduction in the sentence, contending that the prosecutrix was no more and that the offence occurred 19 years ago. The accused also has a wife and kids who would suffer on no fault on their own. The Court, relying on the judgement of the Hon’ble SC in the case of Shimbhu and Ors. vs. State of Haryana in which the court has categorically stated that “in the offence of rape, the efflux of time or the socio-economic condition of the accused cannot be ‘special reason’ to impose a lesser punishment than the minimum sentence.”
• Thus, the Court confirmed the sentence passed by the lower court, that is rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs.500.

And now, a question for our aspirants-

Absence of consent in rape cases has been provided under which section of the Indian Evidence Act?

Brandishing Or Holding Weapon Openly By The Accused Sufficient For Section 397 IPC: SC

• In the instant case of Ram Ratan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh a bench of CJI NV Ramana and Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli were hearing an appeal against the order of the Madhya Pradesh HC in which the accused was convicted under section 392/397 of IPC.
• The appellant has claimed that the firearm was not put to any use, and the Apex Court had to decide whether a charge under section 397 IPC would be maintainable if there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant had used the firearm.
• The bench, in the instant case partly allowed the appeal, upholding the conviction under section 392 IPC and setting aside the conviction under section 397 of IPC. the court observed-

“It is clear that the use of the weapon to constitute the offence under section 397 of IPC does not require that the offender must actually fire from the firearm or must actually stab if it is a knife or a dagger, but the mere brandishing or holding it openly to threaten and create fear or apprehension in the mind of the victim is sufficient. The other aspect is that if the charge of committing offence is alleged against all the accused and only one among the offenders had used the firearm or deadly weapon, only such of the offender alone would be liable to be charged under section 397of IPC”.

• The Court also said that the benefit of the interpretation of section 397 IPC would be available to an offender if there was no specific allegation against him.
• The Court, while upholding the conviction under section 392 IPC held that-

“It is no doubt true that the appellant had participated in the offence of committing robbery since ultimately the motorcycle was hidden at a place which was known to the appellant and the property seizure memo indicates that the motorcycle was recovered at the instance of the appellant that certainly constitutes an offence under section 392 IPC”.

Answer the following in the comment section below-

What punishment has been provided under section 397 IPC (robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) ?