High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 on behalf of the appellant (husband) against the impugned judgment and order passed by the Family Court wherein the petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the appellant was dismissed.
Brief Facts:
The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 10.12.2005. As per the appellant, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was the outcome of a calculated fraud that was perpetrated by the respondent and her family members as they chose not to disclose a vital and crucial fact regarding the respondent’s mental health/ailment. According to the appellant, the respondent was, before the marriage, and during the days that she stayed with the appellant, suffering from Acute Schizophrenia. The respondent behaved in a very unusual manner after her marriage in the matrimonial home. Later the appellant found that the respondent was suffering from Acute Schizophrenia. The appellant also averred that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was not consummated. The respondent averred that she has never suffered from any mental or physical ailment, but she did suffer headaches during her college days due to which her studies were discontinued. The respondent has denied that appellant had ever taken her to any doctor, or that she was examined by any doctor, or got any treatment. The respondent had also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights against the appellant which, vide order dated 30.10.2009 of the Family Court, had been clubbed with the divorce petition.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accumulated evidence supports the finding that the Respondent was suffering from “F-20– Hebephrenia”. He has referred to multiple prescriptions that diagnosed the Respondent with either Schizophrenia, or F-20- Hebephrenia.
It was submitted that courts are ill-equipped to weigh, analyse and arrive at definite findings of mental condition/illness of a litigant on their own. Hence, he has argued that the Respondent must be examined by a Medical Board of experts in the field, to ascertain the medical condition of the respondent in view of the rival claims made by the appellant and respondent. It was submitted that the Court can always direct examination by a medical expert, to call for the medical opinion to arrive at the truth. It was also submitted that the parties have not stayed together for longer than two months, and the marriage is not consummated. They have been separated for 16 years.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that subjecting the respondent to a Medical Board would amount to cruelty on her. It was submitted that the appellant never took the respondent to any doctor, as none of the doctors have identified the respondent. He further submitted that there is not a single purchase of medicine shown by the appellant, and there is no justification as to why the appellant would take the respondent to 5 doctors within a period of 1 month, and not wait for the results of the medication. Learned Counsel has refuted that the respondent was suffering from any mental disorder prior to her marriage; at the time of her marriage, and; thereafter.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that Judges are not medical professionals or experts, and acquire limited knowledge based on the arguments of the parties, and the medical literature produced before them; the testimonies of expert witnesses produced in Court, and; the submissions advanced before the Court. The Courts, to be able to decide such issues, needs expert opinion from credible persons in the field. The Court stated that the parties are also entitled to grant of opportunity to either support, or challenge the opinion that the experts may give after examination of the person concerned, and all other relevant materials. However, what weighs with us, at the outset is the denial of the respondent to subject herself to evaluation of her condition by an independent Medical Board to be appointed by the Court. This conducts itself raises a presumption against the respondent.
Court stated that marriage is not made of only happy memories and good times, and two people in a marriage have to face challenges and weather the storm together. It is not easy to live with a partner who has mental health issues, and such ailments come with their own challenges for the person facing the problem, and even more so for the spouse. Court also stated that there needs to be an understanding of the problems in a marriage, and communication between the partners– especially when one of the two partners in a marriage is facing challenges of their own. Treatment of any mental ailment requires acceptance of the same, not only by the family members but, most importantly, by the person suffering therefrom.
Court found that the medical opinion in the present case is not conclusive. However, the evidence of Dr. Rajiv Mehta, coupled with the documents exhibited by them seems to suggest that Respondent was suffering from schizophrenia.
HC concluded that examination by medical specialist, if undertaken, would have been unfavourable to the respondent. The refusal by the respondent to undergo medical examination by the Medical Board of experts leads to the inference that she was not prepared to face the Medical Board as that could have exposed the condition of her mental wellbeing, and would have established the allegation made by the appellant that she was suffering from Schizophrenia.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “the fact that the parties could not live together beyond nine weeks itself shows that the mental disorder suffered by the respondent is of a kind, and to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children. The failure on the part of the respondent to disclose her mental disorder before her marriage with the appellant constituted a fraud perpetrated upon the appellant. Apart from stating that the parties had met a few times before the marriage, the respondent has not specifically averred, or established, that the appellant was made aware of the mental disorder suffered by the respondent, which was passed-off by her as mere “headaches”. Headaches–by themselves are not a disease. They are only symptoms of a disease. The Respondent does not state what caused her such serious and frequent headaches, which debilitated her from completing her studies.”
HC allowed the petition.
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh
Case Title: Sandeep Aggarwal v. Priyanka Aggarwal
Case Details: MAT. APP. (F.C.) 142/2020
Picture Source : https://www.flickr.com/photos/worldbank/14486015000/
