VINIT SAXENA versus PANKAJ PANDIT

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 116 · Decided: 21-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
VIN IT A SAXENA 
v. 
PANKAJ PANDIT 
MARCH 21, 2006 
[RUMA PAL AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.) 
Hindu law: 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 13(/)(i-a) and (iii). 
Divorce-Cruelty and mental disorder-Non-consummation of 
marriage-Marriage solemnized in 1993-Marriage lasted only for jive months 
but was never consummated as the husband was incapable of performing his 
matrimonial obligations-Wife was treated with utmost cruelty both mental 
D and physical by husband's mother-Husband was a case of Paranoid 
Schizophrenia and under constant medical treatment even prior to marriage-
Wife filed a petition for divorce on grounds of mental and physical cruelty-
The wife's case was that on account of Paranoid Schizophrenia that the 
husband was suffering from, she could not be reasonably expected to live with 
him-Trial Court dismissed the petition-High Court affirmed the decision 
E holding that the husband was not suffering from schizophrenia and that there 
was insufficient material on record to establish cause of cruelty-Correctness 
of-Held· To beget children from a Hindu wedlock is one of the principal 
aims of Hindu Marriage where 'sanskar' of marriage is advised for progeny 
and offspring-If procreation of children is not possible it may famish a good 
ground for nullifying the marriage-In the instant case, the husband's mental 
F disorder is such that he is incapable of performing his matrimonial ob/igations-
The marriage between the parties was not consummated-A workable solution 
is certainly not possible and the wife's stay with her husband is injurious to 
her health-Hence, decree of divorce granted 
G 
H 
Words and Phrases: 
"Cruelty"-Meaning of-In the context of S. I 3(l)(i-a) of the Hindu 
Marriage Act, 1955. 
"Mental disorder"-Meaning of-In the context of S. 13(/)(iii) of the 
116 
y 
' 
VINITA SAXENA v. PANKAJ PANDIT 
117 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 
''Schizophrenia' '-Meaning of-Explained 
The marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-
husband was solemnized in the year 1993. The marriage lasted for five 
months but was never consummated on account of the fact that the 
respondent was incapable of performing his matrimonial obligations. It 
was alleged that the respondent's mother treated the appellant with utmost 
cruelty both mental and physical. The respondent's case was a case of 
Paranoid Schizophrenia and he was under constant treatment and 
observations of different doctors even prior to the marriage for the said 
ailment. 
The appellant filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 
(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the grounds of mental and 
physical cruelty before the District Court. The appellant's case was that 
on account of Paranoid Schizophrenia that the respondent was suffering 
from, the appellant could not be reasonably expected to live with the 
respondent. 
The trial court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. The High 
Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant holding that the 
testimonies of the do~tors examined by the appellant to prove that the 
respondent was suffering from Schizophrenia could not be looked into for 
the reason· that the respondent was not under the treatment of the said 
disorder. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is not in dispute that the marriage has lasted hardly 
for five months and was never consummated on account of the fact that 
the respondent was incapable of performing his matrimonial obligations. 
The appellant has examined herself as PW-I. She has specifically stated 
in her deposition that the marriage was not consummated at all. It has 
further come out in her deposition that she accompanied the respondent 
to the hospital and met the Sexologist and Marriage Counsellor. In her 
deposition, it had also come out that the said· doctor informed her that 
the respondent cannot perform the marital obligations. She was also 
informed by the said doctor that the respondent was a Psychopathic case 
and he has no power of concentration. She was also informed that the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
118 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20061 3 S.C.R. 
A disease is uncurable in nature. The appellant has further deposed that the 
respondent kept on sleeping for three days immediately after solemnization 
of marriage and the appellant was told that she should not disturb him. 
It was further stated in her evidence that the appellant was blamed for 
the respondent's illness and was mercilessly beaten up and

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