LexPANKAJ MAHAJAN versus DIMPLE @ KAJAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 945 PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL (Civil Appeal No. 8402 of 2011) SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 [P. SATHASIVAM AND· DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s.13 - Husband filed petition for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce on grounds A B of (I) 'cruelty' and (ii) incurable 'unsound mind' of wife - C Whether appellant-husband made out a case for divorce · against the respondent-wife on grounds of 'cruelty' and 'unsound mind' - Held: The appellant established and proved both the grounds - From the side of appellant, various doctors and other witnesses were examined to prove that respondent D was suffering from mental disorder - All the four doctors/ . Psychiatrists who treated the respondent - PW-1, PW-2, PW-· 3 and PW-7, and prescribed medicines also expressed the view that it was "incurable" - Even respondent and her father themselves admitted in their cross-examination that E respondent took treatment from the said Doctors for mental illness - It was proved beyond doubt that respondent was suffering. from mental disorder! Schizophrenia and the appellant was not reasonably expected to live With her - No doubt, after marriage, the couple was blessed with a female F child and at present she is studying in a school, however, whenever the child was with respondent, the respondent was not taking appropriate care - Many a times the respondent casually threw the child facing opposite to her - PW-5, landlord of the parties, highlighted several instances when the G respondent used to quarrel with appellant and he had to face humiliation in front of others because of her behavior - The appellant placed adequate materials to show that the respondent use<.1 to give repeated threats to commit suicide and once even tried to commit suicide by jumping from the H 945 946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A terrace - The acts and conduct of the respondent were such as to cause pain, agony and suffering to the appellant which amounted to cruelty in matrimonial law - Further, appellant and respondent were living separately for the last more than nine years and there is no possibility to unite them - Divorce B petition filed by appellant accordingly allowed. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s. 13 - Dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce on ground of 'unsound mind' - Held: The onus of proving that the other spouse is incurably of unsound mind or is suffering from mental disorder lies on C the party alleging it - It must be proved by cogent and clear evidence. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s. 13 - Dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce on ground of 'cruelty' - D Repeated threats to commit suicide - Held: Cruelty postulates treatment of a spouse with such cruelty as to create reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with the· other party - Giving repeated threats to commit suicide amounts to cruelty. E The appellant-husband filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on grounds of (i) 'cruelty' and (ii) incur.able 'unsound mind' of the respondent-wife. F The District Court accepted the claim of cruelty and granted decree of divorce in favour of the appellant- husband. Aggrieved, the respondent-wife filed a!'.)peal before the High Court. The High Court completely rejected the claim of divorce even under unsound mind and set aside tho judgment and decree passed by the G triis I court. The qw:istivn which arose for consideration in the in~tant appeal· was whether the appellant-husb&:1nd ·had made out a case for divorce on grounds of 'cruelty' and H 'unsound mind'. PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL 947 Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Ac:t, 1955 specifies the grounds on which a decree of divorce may A be obtained by either party to the marriage. The onus of proving that the other spouse is incurably of unsound 8 mind or is suffering from mental disorder lies on the party alleging it. It must be proved by cogent and clear evidence. [Para 6] [956-B] 1.2. In the case on hand, since the appellant-husband approached the District Court for a decree of divorce, the C onus was on him to prove the grounds put-forth by him. [Para 7] (956-C] 2.1. From the materials placed on record, it is clear that the appellant-husband has brought cogent materials
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.