R. LAKSHMI NARAYAN versus SANTHI

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 01-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
-
' . 
R.LAKSHMJNARAYAN 
A 
SAN THI 
MAY I, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.J 
B 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955-Sections 5(ii) and 12(l)(h): 
Declaration of marriage null and void-Wife suffering from mental 
disorder and refusing to have cohabitation with husband-Establishment C 
of-Helc;f. husband failed to establish that the ailment suffered by wife is of 
such a kind or such an extent that it is impossible for her to lead a normal 
married life. 
" 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Section JOO. 
Non-formulation of question of law by High Court-Held, on facts, it 
is not expedient to remit the matter back to High Court for fresh disposal-
Constitution of India, 1950 Article 136. 
D 
Appellant and respondent were married according to Hindu rites. After 
staying together for few days, they parted company. Appellant-husband filed E 
a petition before Trial Court under Section 5(ii) read with Section 12(1)(b) 
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking declaration to treat the marriage 
null and void as the respondent-wife was suffering from chronic and incurable 
mental disorder and is not in a fit mental state to lead a married life and that 
she refused to have marital relationship. The Trial Court dismissed the 
petition. Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the appellant on the findings 
that there was no cohabitation between them and that the respondent was 
suffering from mentle disorder from her childhood. On appeal by the 
respondent, High Court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court holding 
F 
that the appellant was aware of the physical and mental disorder of the 
respondent before the marriage and that the marriage was not vitiated by G 
fraud or misrepresentation. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. On a plain reading of Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Marriage 
Act, 1955, it is manifest that the conditions prescribed in the section, if H' 
329 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[200 I] 3 S.C.R. 
established, disentitles the party to a valid marriage. The marriage is not per 
se void but voidable under Section 12(1 )(b) of the Act. Such conditions call 
for strict standard of proof. An objection to a marriage on the ground of 
mental incapacity must depend on a question of degree of the defect in order 
to rebut the validity of a marriage, which has taken place. The onus of proof 
lies heavily on the petitioner, who seeks annulment of the marriage on the 
ground of unsoundness of mind or mental disorder. (334-C) 
1.2. It cannot be said that the respondent has been suffering from mental 
disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and 
procreation of children. To draw such an inference merely from the fact that 
the spouses had no cohabitation for a short period of about a month is neither 
reasonable nor permissible. To brand the wife as unfit for marriage and 
procreation of children on account of the mental disorder, it needs to be 
established that the ailment suffered by her is of such a kind or such an 
extent that it is impossible for her to lead a normal married life, which 1is 
the requirement under the provisions of the Act. The findings of the Appellate 
Court is not sufficient to comply with the condition prescribed under Section 
5(ii) (b) of the Act. [334-H; 335-A-B) 
2. The High Court has. not formulated any question of law in the 
judgment, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 100 C.P.C. The 
High Court has also not considered the relevant aspects of the matter other 
than fraud and misrepresentation about mental condition of the respondent 
on the part of her parents at the time of the marriage. On facts and 
circumstances of the case, it is not expedient .to remit the matter back to the 
High Court for fresh disposal. From the materials placed on record, this is 
not a fit case for interfering with the judgment of the High Court in exercise 
of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. [335-D-FI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDIC_TION : Civil Appeal No. 5028 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25th Nov., 1988 of the Madras High 
G Court in Civil Misc. Second Appeal No. 44/91. 
V. Prabhakar, Ms. Revathy Raghavan and Rakesh Garg for the Appellant. 
A TM Sampath for the Respondent. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
• 
-io 
i-
# 
"' 
~ 
\ ·-
• 
I 
R. LAKSHMI NARAYAN v. SANTHI [MOHAPATRA, J.] 
331 
\ 
D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. On analysis of the case of the parties and the A 
l .,, 
contentions raised by lear

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.