LexSWARAJYA LAKSHMI versus G.G.PADMA RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SW ARAJYA LAKSHMI \1, G. G. PADMA RAO October 19, 1973 07 n [K. K. MATHEW, M. H. BEG AND A. K. MUKHE.RJEA, JJ.J Tlind11 Marriage Act (2~ of 1955), s. !3U)(iv)-Yirulent and i11r.urable form of ltpro:r)', wlrnt is--Relevancy of motives of spouses of their parents. c D E F The appellant was suffering from the Jeproma~ous form Qf leprosy, Md the respondent, her husband, filed a petition under s. 13 (1) (iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act, .J9SS, for the dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the appellant had, for a ]lfriod of not less than 3 years immediatcly preceding the presentation of the petition, been suffering from a virulent (lnd (ncurable form of leprosy. The .Hish Court, in appeal, arantr.d the decree. Dismissing the appeal to thi.! Court, HELD : The form leprosy from which the appellant was suJfcrin~t was both virulent and incurable and it was a ftt case for granting the Jecree. [lOSE-F) · ( 1 ) The term virulent is not a medical term. The decisions of the Privy Council and the different High Courts m India wh~re the word virulent' had been used for interpreting the Hindu Law on the subject of exclusion from inheritance have used it to describe leprosy of the most serious aDd aggravated type. The emphasis in the Hindu rcl1gious and legal texts was on the compc· tencc of a man to perform his social and religious obligatiops. No word had been used in those texts which coull\ be referred to as the c:onespondiq Sanskrit word for 'virulent'. Therefore, those decisions do not give any sure and reliable guiuancc for interpreting the word 'virulent' in the iection. (IOOE·, IOIE·Fl Railgcry_vrt Clletti v. TflilnikacluJlla Mudali &. Ors •. J.L.R. 19 Mnd. 74. A1111nta v. Ramabai. J.L.R. 1 Born. 554. Ramaf>ai. v. llamabai, J.l..R. ~8' Bom. 363, (P.C.) Knyar~lla Pnthan v. Subbnraya Tl1avan, LL.R. 38 Mad. 250, Karali Char(l!J Pfll v, Asltutosh Nandi, I.L.R. SO Cal. 604, referred to. (2) 'Virulent' according to the dictionary means 'malignant and infectious'. Almost oil medical authorities rec'lgnise lepromatous leprOlly as malignant and contagious. [102B.C] (3) (a) The disense can also be described as an incurable form of leprosy. Sulpbone treatment which bas made undoubtedly a great advance on the pre- vious methods of .treatment of leprosy does not guarantee complete cure. There are abo other efficacious drugs but even so, experts do not yet consider that, with all the advances in physiotherapy,. surgery or orthopaedic ~urgery, it is possible either to cure the disease completely or to correct the ·deformities and mutilations that are often produced by the disease. [105A-B, C-E). (b) Further, sulphone drugs were discovered about 1941 and the Legislature must be presumed to have known about their effect on leprosy when the Hindu G Marriage Act, 1955, was p!IS:Ied. If it be true that all types of leprosy are curable by sulpbone drugs the legislature would not have provided for the grant of divorce on the ground of ilacurr.,bit leprosy. [lOSB..CJ ( 4) It i~ true that the social approach to leprosy should b! that one should' take a very humane and balanced outlook and accept leprosy as simply another disorder that requires medical attention. But that does not provid" anv justifi- cation for compelling a husband to live with a wife who is suffering from an: a~t~ravated form of jeprosv and who can communicate it to him and his children H almost any lltOment in their dailv life even though the legislature bv statute hu rjven the husband a way of relief. The only consideration bein!l the welfare of. the spouses and ol the children, if :my, of the marring", the court cannot take into account while deciding the question the motives of the soou~es for applying for divorce or cf their parents in arranging the marri<•ge. [106A·B. C-EJ 8-L447SCr'/74. 98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974 ) 2 S.C.lt. CIVIL APPELATt:: JURISDICTION : Civil A~l No, 2248 of 1970 Appeal by special leave from the judgement and Order dated the 2nd July, 1969, of the Andhra Pr.adesh High Court at Hyderabad in appeal against order No. 224 of 1966. Y. S. Chitle, K. Rajendra Choudhury and Vtena Devi, for the appellant. R. Vas.udev Pillai and P. Kesava Pillai, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by " B MUICHERJEA, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed agairist the judgment and order da£ect July 22, 1 ':169 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.