Jharkhand High Court
Shib Kumar Nirala vs Annu Nirala on 4 October, 2023
First Appeal No. 235 of 2018
...........
[Against the judgment dated 31.05.2018 passed by Sri Satya Prakash
Sinha, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur, East
Singhbhum in Original Suit No. 364 of 2013]
...........
Shib Kumar Nirala ... ... Appellant
Versus
Annu Nirala ... ... Respondent
...........
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
...........
For the Appellant/Husband : Mr. Samir Kr. Lall, Advocate
For the Respondent/Wife : Mr. Purnendu Sharan, Advocate
...........
C.A.V. on 20.09.2023 Pronounced on 04.10.2023
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. Samir Kr. Lall, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Purnendu Sharan, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment
dated 31.05.2018 passed by Sri Satya Prakash Sinha, learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum in
Original Suit No. 364 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the suit
preferred by the appellant for dissolution of his marriage with
the respondent u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been
dismissed.
3. For the sake of convenience both the parties are
referred to in this judgment as per their status in the learned
court below.
4. The petitioner (appellant herein) had preferred a
suit u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the
respondent (respondent herein) in which it has been stated that
the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the
respondent on 24.02.2012 as per Hindu rites and customs at
Adityapur Housing Colony, Road No.- 06, P.O.- Adityapur, P.S.-
R.I.T., District- Seraikella Kharsawan. The respondent after her
marriage started residing at her matrimonial house from
29.02.2012 situated at Bagbera Colony, Jamshedpur. On arrival
of the respondent in her matrimonial house her behavior was
found to be abnormal and she sometimes become aggressive and
extended threats of committing suicide and implicating her in-
laws in a criminal case. The behavior of the respondent forced
the petitioner to complain to the brother of the respondent who
was present and who had some medicines with him which was
administered to the respondent at which she became normal.
When the petitioner asked the respondent to take medicines
again, she became furious and started pressurizing her brother
as according to her the petitioner and his family members were
mad with whom she cannot adjust. It has been stated that on a
query made by the petitioner the brother of the respondent
disclosed that the respondent is a patient of schizophrenia for
long and her treatment is going on which was suppressed by the
relatives of the respondent at the time of marriage. It has been
stated that the respondent gradually started creating
disturbances in various ways as she used to get up between
11:30 A.M. and 12:00 P.M., she used to avoid the deal household
chores and used to be busy continuously over phone conversing
with her relatives. It has been stated that the respondent also
used to sometimes sing and dance in presence of her in-laws
and also in her bedroom and thereafter she used to cry. All
efforts made by the petitioner and his family members to
convince the respondent not to indulge in such type of behavior
proved futile. It has also been stated that the respondent used to
assault the aged mother of the petitioner and damaged
household articles. The petitioner had taken the respondent to
Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur, Jila Mansik Swasthya Kendra
and Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi but no moral or
physical support was extended to the petitioner by the family
members of the respondent and they had also refused to keep
the respondent with them. It has been stated that one of the
brothers of the respondent namely, Santosh Kumar Mishra who
is a permanent employee of the Railways had come to the house
of the petitioner and at the time of his departure the petitioner
had narrated the conduct of the respondent to him at which the
petitioner was subjected to abuse and the petitioner was asked
to bear the entire responsibility of the respondent. The
respondent had also not permitted the petitioner to have
physical relationship with her and, therefore, in spite of
considerable lapse of time he was not blessed with any child. It
has been stated that on account of the pressure created by the
respondent the petitioner was forced to drop her at her parental
house and since then both are living separately.
5. The respondent on being noticed had filed a
written statement wherein she has denied the allegations leveled
against her by the petitioner. It has been stated that she has
been tortured by the petitioner and her in-laws for which she
had lodged a case at Jugslai P.S. u/s 498A/34 of the I.P.C.
which is still pending. She has stated that a huge amount was
spent in her marriage to satisfy the demands of the petitioner
and his family members. She had resided in her matrimonial
house as a dutiful housewife and after a few days she came to
realize that the petitioner is having an illicit relationship with his
sister-in-law and when she objected to such relationship she was
abused and assaulted. It has been stated that after marriage she
had resided at her matrimonial house till 11.09.2013 on which
date she was ousted from her matrimonial house. She is not a
patient of schizophrenia and she has been undergoing treatment
for the same. She has cooperated in performing normal conjugal
obligations and there has been physical relationship between her
and the petitioner. She has stated that despite odds she has
tried to adjust in her matrimonial house. She was opposed to the
illicit relationship of her husband which she witnessed time and
again. On account of the illicit relationship between the
petitioner and his sister-in-law she went into depression. The
petitioner had intentionally prepared documents in respect of
her insanity in order to get a decree of divorce and solemnize a
second marriage. She has also denied that her brother who is an
employee in Indian Railways had abused the petitioner. She has
expressed a hope that peaceful conjugal life between her and the
petitioner will be restored.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties the
following issues were framed:
I. Is the suit as framed maintainable?
II. Whether the applicant has valid cause of
action?
III. Whether the respondent has committed acts of
cruelty with the applicant?
IV. Whether the respondent has been incurably of
unsound mind or has been suffering
continuously or intermittently from mental
disorder of such a kind and to such an extent
that the petitioner cannot be reasonably
expected to live with the respondent?
V. Whether the applicant is entitled to a decree of
divorce on the ground of cruelty and insanity?
VI. To what are the relief or reliefs, the petitioner is
entitled for?
7. The petitioner has examined as many as four
witnesses in support of his case.
8. P.W.1 (Shib Kumar Nirala) is the petitioner who
has stated about solemnization of his marriage with the
respondent on 24.02.2012. The respondent was suffering from
mental illness prior to her marriage which was suppressed by
the family members of the respondent. When after marriage the
respondent came to her matrimonial house, she used to remain
awake the whole night and she had an aggressive behavior. She
was taken by him for treatment to Tata Main Hospital,
Jamshedpur, RINPAS and Central Institute of Psychiatry, Kanke
and he came to know that she is suffering from schizophrenia.
When this issue was discussed with his father-in-law and
brother-in-law both advised him to keep her as nothing could be
done now. The respondent used to remain in an unhygienic
condition for days. Sometime she used to have bouts of
schizophrenic attack and she used to become violent and destroy
the household articles. At such time she used to assault his aged
mother. When the Doctor was consulted it was advised that she
has to take medicines throughout her life. He was ready for the
same and even tried to administer medicine to her but she used
to throw away the medicines. It has been stated that his father-
in-law and brother-in-law were taken into confidence and they
had stayed at his house and witnessed such behavior of the
respondent. Once the brother of the respondent had
accompanied him to Tata Main Hospital, C.I.P., Ranchi and Zila
Mansik Swasthya Kendra, Jamshedpur and on being asked by
the Doctor he had disclosed that her suffering from mental
illness and on a belief that after marriage she may become
normal, he had got his sister married to the petitioner. It has
also been stated that since his wife is mentally ill, she does not
permit him to have physical relationship with her. In April, 2013
when his brother-in-law had come, he had apprised him of the
mental condition of the respondent at which he became rude
and threatened to implicate him in a case. The life of the
petitioner has become stressful on account of such incidents.
Later on, to create pressure upon him the father and brother of
the respondent instigated the respondent to institute a criminal
case against him and his family members in which charge-sheet
was submitted against him. He had given a letter to the Deputy
Commissioner, East Singhbhum on 05.08.2013, in which, a
request was made to get an inquiry conducted regarding the
torture committed upon him by the respondent and his family
members. Another letter was sent on 05.08.2013 to Senior S.P.
East Singhbhum wherein an apprehension was expressed that
he and his family members may be falsely implicated in a case. A
similar letter was also given to Dy. S.P. Jamshedpur on
07.08.2013. An informatory petition was also given in the court
of SDJM, Jamshedpur. He has further stated that in spite of the
respondent being a mentally deranged person the same was
suppressed at the time of marriage which has caused him
immense mental cruelty.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that during
the pendency of the suit a tenancy agreement was entered into
on 24.04.2017 which was prepared for keeping his wife with
him. During his stay for four days in his in-laws' house he did
not come to know about the mental illness of his wife as during
such period he was not allowed to meet his wife. Later on, after
visiting the Doctor he came to know about her mental illness. He
had approached the High Court for quashing of the criminal case
which however was dismissed. After the tenancy agreement was
submitted in the court his wife had come to the court and at that
point of time, he had wanted to keep his wife. He has stated that
if his wife gets well, he is ready to keep her. No Doctor has
referred in writing his wife to C.I.P., Ranchi.
9. P.W.2 (Dr. Amiye Krishna Sahu) is posted in
C.I.P., Ranchi. With respect to Exhibit-5, he has stated that the
same has been issued by C.I.P. He has brought the file of the
case record which has been marked as Exhibit-7. It is a fact that
the respondent is a mental patient. The respondent had come for
treatment along with her husband and brother.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that at
page 4 of the case file it has been written that two years after the
death of her mother the respondent had complained of
restlessness. At page 13, it was mentioned that the attitude of
the patient was cooperative. At page 16, it has been mentioned
"impression acute stress reaction undifferentiated
schizophrenia". From the case record it is not decipherable that
the patient is not capable to lead a normal married life. He had
not seen the patient nor he had treated her.
10. P.W.3 (Dr. Manoj Kumar Sahu) had treated the
respondent. He has stated that the respondent is a patient of
schizophrenia.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that in the
5th page of the Medical Book it was mentioned that the patient is
suffering from schizophrenia for which she was prescribed some
medicines. In the 9th page dated 11.06.2012 it has been
mentioned "better, complaining of anxiety". The same entry was
made at page 10 dated 28.06.2012. At page 13, dated
03.01.2013, it has been written "a case of schizophrenia still
having problems not adjusting at in-laws house better with some
medication at maternal home". On perusal of the Medical Book,
it could be ascertained that the patient used to follow his advice
and cooperate with him in treatment. He has stated that about
30% of the patients suffering from schizophrenia on taking
medicines get fully cured while 30% on taking regular medicines
will lead a normal marital life. The rest in spite of treatment does
not get cured and domestic troubles persist with them.
11. P.W.4 (Dr. Deepak Kumar Giri) is a Psychiatrist at
MGM, College & Hospital, Jamshedpur. On 06.02.2013 the
patient Annu Nirala had come to him along with her husband
and brother.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that
depression is also a mental illness. Generally, if the disease is
diagnosed at the initial stage and long-term treatment is given
with the assistance of the family members such patient can lead
a normal family life. The respondent had come to him on three
occasions, once with her husband and twice with her brother.
12. The respondent has examined four witnesses in
support of her case including herself.
13. R.W.1 (Annu Nirala) is the respondent who has
stated about her solemnization of marriage with the petitioner on
24.02.2012 at Adityapur Housing Colony and after marriage she
started residing at Bagbera Colony with her husband. In the
marriage the demand of the petitioner which was excessive was
fulfilled by her father and brother. The petitioner has leveled
imaginary allegation against her. She in her matrimonial home
had fulfilled her duties and obligations as she is a soft-spoken
lady with a good temperament. After a few days of marriage, she
could realize that her husband was having an illicit relationship
with his sister-in-law. The petitioner and his family members
had abused and assaulted her. She has stated that she has all
along been willing to lead a peaceful conjugal life with the
petitioner and in spite of the pendency of the case the petitioner
in order to reside with her had searched out a house and an
agreement was also entered into. The petitioner had expressed
his desire to stay with her in spite of the pendency of the suit.
After her marriage, she had stayed at her matrimonial house till
11.09.2013 on which date she was ousted. The petitioner during
the said period had never made any complaints that she was
suffering from mental illness. Her brother had not given her any
medicine related to mental illness. She has stated that she is not
a patient of schizophrenia and due to such allegations leveled by
the petitioner she has been defamed in the society. The
petitioner has also established physical relationship with her. In
the criminal case on the basis of the evidence charge-sheet was
submitted against the petitioner. She has also disclosed about
the illicit relationship of the petitioner and his sister-in-law
which she had herself witnessed. She had never expressed a
desire to stay at her parents' house. She became depressed due
to her witnessing the illicit relationship between the petitioner
and his sister-in-law. The petitioner has produced forged
documents in order to get her divorced as a mental patient
which would pave the way for him to solemnize another
marriage.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she is
an Honours Graduate in Political Science. It is true that her
husband had an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law. She
had made a complaint to her mother-in-law about such
relationship prior to 11.09.2013. She was treated at TMH, MGM
and once at Ranchi. She was assaulted and forcibly taken to the
Doctor for treatment. She does not know what medicines were
being administered to her. She also does not know for which
illness such medicines were being given to her.
14. R.W.2 (Santosh Kumar Mishra) is the brother of
the respondent who has stated about the marriage solemnized
between the petitioner and the respondent on 24.02.2012. The
allegation leveled by the petitioner against his sister is totally
imaginary. His sister is a peace-loving person who fulfilled her
duties in her matrimonial house but the petitioner and his
family members used to abuse and assault her. The respondent
still wants to lead a happy conjugal life with the petitioner. He
has stated that on 11.09.2013 the petitioner had ousted his
sister from her matrimonial house. His sister is not a patient of
schizophrenia and such insinuation cast by the petitioner has
defamed his sister in the society. His sister after her marriage
had never committed cruelty upon her husband and his family
members. His sister had never expressed any desire that she
wants to stay at her parents' house. He has stated that the
petitioner had produced forged documents regarding the mental
illness in order to facilitate his desire to solemnize a second
marriage.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that his
sister does not suffer from any illness and he had never taken
his sister to the Doctor for treatment. Since his sister is not a
mental patient the petitioner never had the compulsion to get
her treated by a doctor.
15. R.W.3 (Gangadhar Mishra) is the father of the
respondent who has stated about solemnization of marriage of
the petitioner and the respondent on 24.02.2012. He has also
reiterated what has been stated by R.W.1 and R.W.2 that his
daughter was ousted from her matrimonial house on 11.09.2013
and that his daughter never suffered from any mental illness.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that after
3-4 months of marriage his daughter had complained to him
regarding the torture being committed upon her. He has denied
having any knowledge that his daughter was taken by the
petitioner and his son to TMH, MGM and C.I.P., Ranchi for
treatment. He had not verified about the genuinity of the
prescriptions submitted.
16. D.W.4 (Raushan Kumar) is acquainted with both
the sides. He knows the respondent from her childhood and she
is a well behaved and peace-loving woman.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he
does not know that the respondent is undergoing treatment at
C.I.P., Ranchi.
17. Mr. Samir Kr. Lall, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner/appellant has submitted that a perusal of Exhibits
1 to 7 would reveal that the respondent is suffering from
schizophrenia which is a mental ailment and the petitioner has
tried his level best in order to get the respondent cured. It is
false to say that the petitioner had manufactured the
prescription with an oblique motive to get a declaration that the
respondent is a patient of mental illness as the evidence of the
Doctors clearly indicate that the petitioner was always
accompanied by his brother-in-law and it would further highlight
that it was a concerted effort by both the sides to provide the
best possible treatment to the respondent. Learned counsel has
submitted that the illness of the respondent was suppressed by
her family members at the time of marriage as the evidence of
P.W.2 indicates that the respondent was suffering from
schizophrenia since the year 2011. The evidences of P.W.3 and
P.W.4 would further reveal that in spite of continuous treatment
she has not been cured and as per them she falls in the bracket
of such patients who suffers from an incurable variety of
schizophrenia. Mr. Lall has submitted that Exhibit-5 reveals the
incoherent behavior of the respondent and other characteristics
for which she was advised psychosomatic personal assessment,
family therapy and medication. It has been submitted that the
entire materials related to the case point towards an act of
cruelty committed by the respondent and the petitioner is
entitled to get a decree of divorce on the ground of mental illness
and schizophrenia as envisaged in Section 13(1) (iii) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.
18. Mr. Purnendu Sharan, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent has submitted that false allegations have
been leveled against the respondent of she being a patient of
mental illness. Emphatic denial has come from the respondent
and her witnesses. While referring to the evidence of P.W.2, it
has been stated that there is no definite opinion that the
respondent will not be able to lead a normal conjugal
relationship even if she is suffering from schizophrenia. He has
submitted that care and affection of the family members is also a
part of the treatment and it was all the more necessary for the
petitioner to be at the side of the respondent but instead the
petitioner wants to finally end the marital ties with the
respondent. It is the consistent case of the respondent that even
now she wants to lead a happy and peaceful conjugal
relationship with the respondent. He has stated that the learned
court below has committed an error in dismissing the suit
preferred by the petitioner.
19. We have heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties and have also perused the Lower Court
Records.
20. The paramount prayer of the petitioner was of
seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. During the pendency of
the suit the ground veered towards insanity as well as cruelty
and the fundamental issues to be decided were therefore Issue
nos. III and IV. As per the pleadings of the petitioner after a few
days of marriage it was detected that the respondent was
behaving abnormally and had become aggressive and on being
taken to the Doctor she was detected with schizophrenia and
bouts of such attack led to violent behavior on the part of the
respondent. As per the petitioner the respondent was suffering
from such mental condition from prior to her marriage and it
was suppressed by her family members. The respondent and her
witnesses had denied such allegation and all have expressed the
desire of the respondent to live a happy conjugal life with the
petitioner.
21. The respondent having been diagnosed with
schizophrenia which has been one of the main planks of the
petitioner seeking divorce for which he has relied upon the oral
as well as documentary evidence. The following are the
documents exhibited by the petitioner
(a) Original Medical Book of T.M.H. (Exhibit-1)
(b) Doctors' prescription of different dates
(Exhibits- 2 to 2/3)
(c) Pathology Report (Exhibit-3)
(d) A cash memo of medicines of different dates
(Exhibits- 4 to 4/4)
(e) Registration Card of C.I.P., Ranchi (Exhibit-5)
(f) Authentication letter dated 20.11.2017 (Exhibit-
6)
(g) Attested General Psychiatry Case Record of
Annu Nirala (CIP)- (Exhibit-7)
22. P.W.2 is posted at C.I.P., Ranchi and though in
his cross-examination, he has stated that he had neither seen
the patient nor had treated her but at the same time from the
case records he has not been able to come to a definitive finding
regarding the incapability of the respondent to lead a normal
married life. P.W.3 is the Doctor who had treated the respondent
and as per his evidence the respondent used to cooperate and
heed his advice. He has also stated about the respondent
suffering from schizophrenia for which she was given medicines.
The general psychiatry case record of C.I.P.,
Ranchi (Exhibit-5) detailing the history of illness of the
respondent and the effect of the treatment given to her will give
insight into the true picture of the mental illness of the
respondent. The history of the illness which have been recorded
reveals that after the mother of the respondent passed away in
2009, she started suffering from anxiety and restlessness. The
respondent had consulted a doctor for her illness and was on
medication but this fact was not informed to the petitioner.
Various other facets of her behavior have been recorded in the
history of illness. Her personality was assessed and her mood
was found to be cheerful and able to express her own feeling
both negative and positive, her character has been assessed to
be sociable, her attitude shows respect for elders, sleep pattern
is normal and adequate and the overall impression was "well
adjusted". She was diagnosed with undifferentiated
schizophrenia.
Exhibit-2 is a prescription issued by P.W.4 and
the history of the respondent as recorded reveals obfuscation
( ), disturbed sleep and unable to work properly. Exhibit-1
is the Medical Book of TMH and the diagnosis on 03.01.2013
reveals a case of schizophrenia, not adjusting at in-laws' house
and better after some medication at maternal house.
23. What therefore can be culled out from the
evidences of P.W.3 and P.W.4 and the medical documents is that
the respondent was diagnosed with schizophrenia.
24. Section 13 (1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
and its explanation reads as follows:
"13(1)(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or
has been suffering continuously or intermittently
from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an
extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be
expected to live with the respondent.
Explanation.--In this clause,--
(a) the expression "mental disorder" means mental
illness, arrested or incomplete development of
mind, psychopathic disorder or any other
disorder or disability of mind and includes
schizophrenia;
(b) the expression "psychopathic disorder" means a
persistent disorder or disability of mind
(whether or not including sub-normality of
intelligence) which results in abnormally
aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on
the part of the other party, and whether or not it
requires or is susceptible to medical treatment;
or"
25. In explanation (a) to Section 13(1)(iii)
schizophrenia is included within the definition of mental
disorder which if proved would lead to dissolution of marriage.
The grant of divorce to a spouse cannot however simplicitor be
on the ground of the other spouse suffering from mental disorder
and it has to be of such an extent that the petitioner cannot
reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. None of the
Medical documents submitted by the petitioner leads to an
inference that the schizophrenia suffered by the respondent
would make it impossible for the petitioner to lead a normal
conjugal life with her. In fact, what would buttress this fact is
the evidence of the petitioner himself as P.W.1 in which he had
admitted to have entered into a tenancy agreement during the
pendency of the suit on 24.04.2017 with a specific purpose of
keeping the respondent with him in a rented house. This
statement also gets correlated with the evidence of the
respondent (R.W.1). We may also note herein that as per the
evidence of P.W.3 a substantial percentage of schizophrenic
patients with proper care and medication can lead a normal
marital life. The evidence of P.W.1 and the medical documents
leads us to come to a conclusion that the disease suffered by the
respondent is not incurable but comes within the realm of the
majority percentage of cases where this disease does not act as
an impediment in leading a normal and healthy marital
relationship.
26. The issue of mental cruelty is correlated with the
allegation of respondent suffering from mental disorder. It is to
be noted herein that it was the respondent who had instituted a
criminal case against the petitioner in which charge-sheet has
been submitted against the petitioner and which contradicts the
allegations of cruelty committed by the respondent upon the
petitioner.
27. Issue nos. III and IV have therefore rightly been
decided in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.
28. Marriage is sacrosanct among Hindus which is a
holy union of two individuals. We feel it apt to conclude by giving
reference to the case of "Kollam Chandra Sekhar versus Kollam
Padma Latha" reported in (2014) 1 SCC 225, wherein it has been
observed as follows:
"42. Marriage is highly revered in India and we are a
nation that prides itself on the strong foundation of our
marriages, come hell or high water, rain or sunshine.
Life is made up of good times and bad, and the bad
times can bring with it terrible illnesses and extreme
hardships. The partners in a marriage must weather
these storms and embrace the sunshine with
equanimity. Any person may have bad health, this is
not their fault and most times, it is not within their
control, as in the present case, the respondent was
unwell and was taking treatment for the same. The
illness had its fair share of problems. Can this be a
reason for the appellant to abandon her and seek
dissolution of marriage after the child is born from
their union? Since the child is now a grown-up girl, her
welfare must be the prime consideration for both the
parties.
"43. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the
opinion that the two parties in this case must reconcile
and if the appellant so feels that the respondent is still
suffering, then she must be given the right treatment.
The respondent must stick to her treatment plan and
make the best attempts to get better. It is not in the
best interest of either the respondent or her daughter
who is said to be of adolescent age for grant of a
decree of dissolution of marriage as prayed for by the
appellant. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed."
29. We therefore, on the basis of the discussions
made hereinabove do not find any reason to entertain this
appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated, the 4th day of October, 2023.
Alok/NAFR
