LexKOLLAM CHANDRA SEKHAR versus KOLLAM PADMA LATHA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 11 S.C.R. 186 KOLLAM CHANDRA SEKHAR v. KOLLAM PADMA LATHA (Civil Appeal No. 8264 of 2013) ,. SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 [G.S. SINGHVI AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s.13(1)(iii) - Dissolution of marriage on ground of mental illness of spouse - Divorce C petition filed by appellant-husband pleading that respondent- wife was suffering from schizophrenia - Respondent-wife filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights - Trial Court allowed the divorce petition and dismissed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights - Judgment reversed by the High Court - D Justification - Held: Justified - The High Court rightly examined the entire evidence on record and coffectly found fault with the findings of fact recorded by the trial court with regard to the ailment attributed to respondent for seeking dissolution of marriage under the ground of 'unsound mind' E which is a non-existent fact - Inability to manage his or her affairs is an essential attribute of an "incurably unsound mind" - The facts pleaded and the evidence placed on reoord produced by the appellant did not establish such inability as a ground on which dissolution of marriage was sought for by F him - Respondent had not only completed MBBS but also did a post graduate diploma in Medicine and was continuously working as a Government Medical Officer and had she been suffering from any serious kind of mental disorder, particularly, acute type of schizophrenia, it would have been impossible for her to work in the said post - G Appellant did not prove the fact of mental disorder of the respondent with reference to the a/legation made against her that she has been suffering from schizophrenia by producing positive and substantive evidence on record and on the other H 186 KOLLAM CHANDRA SEKHAR v. KOLLAM PADMA 187 LATHA hand, it is proved that respondent is in much better health A .condition and does not show signs of schizophrenia as per the most recent medical report from NIMHANS - The respondent, even if she did suffer from schizophrenia, is in a much better health condition at present - The two parties in this case must reconcile and if the appellant so feels that the B respondent is still suffering, then she must be given the right treatment - It is not in the best interest of either the respondent or her daughter who is said to;be of adolescent age for grant of a decree of dissolution of marriage as prayed for by the appellant. c The questions which arose for consideration in the present appeal were:- 1) Whether respondent-wife was suffering from a serious mental disorder i.e. schizophrenia or incurable unsoundness of mind, and can this be considered as a ground for divorce under D Section 13(1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; 2) Whether the High Court had correctly re-appreciated the facts pleaded and evidence on record while dismissing the divorce petition of the appellant-husband and allowing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights of E the respondent-wife and 3) Whether the judgment and decree of trial court granting divorce to the appellant- husband should be restored and the petition for conjugal . rights filed by the respondent-wife dismissed. F Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The High Court rightly examined the entire evidence on record and correctly found fault with.,, the findings of fact recorded by the trial court with regard to the ailment attributed to the respondent for seeking G dissolution of marriage under the ground of 'unsound mind' which is a non-existent fact. The judgment of the High Court in not granting a decree of divorce and · allowing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, is upheld. [Paras 15, 24) [203-F; 211-G] H 188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R. A 1.2. In the instant case, as per the evidence of RW-2, Superintendent, Institute of Mental Health, Hyderabad, schizophrenia is a treatable, manageable disease, which . can be put on par with hypertension and diabetes. So also, PW-4, Professor and Head of Department of B Psychiatry at NIMHANS, Bangalore who had examined the respondent, stated that the team could not find any evidence suggesting schizophrenia at the time of their examining the respondent and he had stated in his cross- examination that no treatment including drugs was given c to her at NIMHANS as they did not find any abnormality in her. They thus gave her a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.