RAM NARAIN GUPTA versus SMT. RAMESHWARI GUPTA

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 913 · Decided: 12-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

J 
..., 
RAM NARAIN GUPTA 
v. 
SMT. RAMESHWARI GUPTA 
SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 
[A.P. SEN AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] 
Hindu Marriaf(e Act, 1955-Section J3(J)(iii)-Dissolution of 
marriage-All mental disorders not recognised as grounds for grant of 
decree-Degree of severity or acuteness of-To be proved-Burden of 
proof on the spouse who alleges-Mere branding of a person as 
Schizaphrenic not enough. 
The appellant and respondent married in 1977. In 1983, the 
appellant filed a suit for dissolution of the marriage, alleging that his 
wife was suffering from severe mental disorder, psychiatrically recog-
nised as 'Schizophrenia' which rendered her unsociable and despite 
competent professional treatment, her condition deteriorated to the 
point . of making 1nanifest in her suicidal te.ndencies and aggressive 
violent behaviour towards others. The appellant could not therefore 
reasonably be expected to live with the respondent as man and wife. 
The Respondent denied the imputation of insanity and contended 
A 
.B 
c 
D 
that the appellant was determined to get rid of her, as a result of the 
E 
domestic discord between he~ and the appellant's mother and sister. 
Both the husband and the wife gave evidence, to prove their respective 
cases. Other witnesses ·were also examined. The respondent-wife pro-
duced a copy of the order passed by the Magistrate ·in proceedings 
initiated by the appellant under the Lunacy Act, for the committal of 
his wife to a mental asylum. The order stated that there was no abnor-
F 
mality in her, requiring institutional treatment. 
· On appreciation of the evidence, the trial court accepted the case 
of the appellant and granted a decree for dissolution of the marriage. 
The Respondent-wife appealed to the High Court. Allowing the 
G 
appeal, the High Court reversed the decree of dissolution of marriage, 
granted by the trial court. It held that the appellant had not shown that 
his wife's mental illness was so intense as to justify a reasonable ap-
prehension that it would be impossible or unsafe for the appellant to live 
with her. 
913 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
914 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
In the present appeal before this Court, it was contended on 
behalf of the appellant that in assessing the reasonableness of the 
husband's apprehension that he could not be expected to spend the rest 
of his life with a 'Schizophrenic', due acknowledgement required to be 
made to his subjective susceptibilities also. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: I. I Section 13(l)(iii) does not make the mere existence of 
a mental disorder of any degree sufficient to justify, the dissolution of a 
marriage. The burden of proof of the existence of the requisite degree of 
mental disorder is on the spouse basing the claim on that state of facts. 
The context in which the ideas of unsoundness of 'mind' and 'mental· 
disorder' occur in the section as grounds for dissolution of a marriage, 
require the assessment of the degree of the 'mental-disorder'. Its degree 
must be such as that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be 
expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not recog-
nised as grounds for grant of decree. [92IC-H; 922A] 
1.2 Schizophrenia is said to be a difficult mental-affiiction. It is 
insidious in its onset and has hereditary pre-disposing factor. Each case 
of Schizophrenia has to be considered on its own merits. Mere branding 
of a person as Schizophrenic will not suffice. For purpose of Sec. 
13(l)(iii) Schizophrenia is what Schizophrenia does. Not all Schzoph· 
E 
renics are characterised by the same intensity of the disease. [9240; 9280] 
2. In the instant case, taking into account the facts and circums· 
tances the High Court, on a reasonable assessment of the situation, 
rightly came to the conclusion that the requisite degree of the mental· 
disorder which alone would justify dissolution of marriage has not been 
p 
established and that the decree for the dissolution of the marriage, 
granted by the trial court was not justified. [917C-D) 
Rita Roy v. Sitesh Chandra, AIR 1982 Cal 138, approved. 
McLoughin v. O'Brian, [1982) 2 All ER 298; Bennett v. Bennett, 
G 
[1969] l All ER 539, relied on. 
John Searle 'Minds, Brains and Science' [1984] Reith Lectures, 
PP. 10 & 11, Concise Medical Dictionary, p. 566, Oxford Medical 
Publications, 1980, Philosophy and Medicine, Vol. 5, p.x. F.C. Redlich 
and Daniel X. Freedman. 'The Theory and Practice of Psychiatry' 
H 
[ 196

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