JOGINDER KAUR Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Has the appellant-wife been suffering continuously or intermittently from a mental disorder including schizophrenia of such a kind and to such an extent that the trial Court could justifiably grant a decree for divorce against her in terms of S.13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act), is the solitary question that arises for decision in this appeal. Apparently this sub-clause has four elements - (i) the party concerned must be of unsound mind or intermittently suffering from schizophrenia or mental disorder; (ii) the decease must be of such a kind; (iii) and of such an extent that (iv) the other party cannot reasonably be expected to live with her or him. The case set up by the respondent husband in his petition under S.13 of the Act is as follows :- Parties were married at Jallundur on December 3, 1978 according to Sikh rites and an off-shoot of the marriage is a son born on April 3, 1980, now admittedly in the custody of the appellant. The appellant has an incomplete development of mind and has been suffering from split personality and psychopathic disorder. She has been suffering from schizophrenia from the very beginning which fact was kept concealed by her parents. Soon after the marriage she started behaving in an abnormal manner as she would laugh and cry without any rhyme or reason in the presence of the members of the house and even the visitors. She has no sense of decency and cannot differentiate between vulgarity and decency. At times she would urinate in the open compound in the presence of the males and would even ease herself in the living room. Soon after the marriage when the neighbours and other relatives paid customary visits to see and meet her she behaved in an abnormal manner a couple of times and went to the extent of spitting at the face of visitors on slightest enquiry by them. When he and his father protested to the father of the appellant about her strange behaviour, he admitted that "she has been suffering from psychopathic disorder but she was got treated by them from Mental Hospital" and insisted that she had already recovered from the disease. He got her medically checked up and treated from Dr. R. L. Narang of Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana and also from the Christian Medical College and Brown Memorial Hospital, Ludhiana. Even after a prolonged treatment she could not be cured. She then left his house in Ludhiana for her parents' place at Jullundur and initiated proceedings against him under S.125 of the Criminal P. C., besides a case under the Dowry Act with a view to harass him. When his father went to Jullundur to attend to these cases against him, the appellant filthily abused him in the presence of the public and also physically assaulted him with her slipper. Under the circumstances the respondent cannot reasonably be expected to live with the appellant.

(2.) The appellant besides denying all the material allegations made against her and as referred to above, categorically pleaded that she never suffered from any unsoundness of mind or mental disorder. She has never been examined and treated by any doctor as alleged by the respondent. According to her, the story put forth by the respondent is a mere concoction. In support of this stand of hers she has pointed out that the respondent had initially filed a similar petition under S.13 of the Act against her and ultimately withdrew the same with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action, vide order dated October 31, 1980, passed by Shri. R. P. Gaind, Additional District Judge. That petition did not contain the material allegations now made in this petition. She further pleaded that "in reality the petitioner and his parents are very greedy persons" as soon after the marriage, the respondent and his family members started complaining about the insufficiency of the dowry brought by her. They insisted that the appellant should at least bring a fridge and a scooter or Rs. 10,000- in cash in lieu thereof from her parents. She knowing the financial position of her parents, pleaded their inability to meet the demands of the respondent and his parents. Ultimately the respondent pushed her out of the house, towards the end of December, 1979. In January, 1980, her father, with a view to rehabilitate her in respondents' house, brought her back to the said house and with a view to save her from the mal-treatment presented certain gold ornaments to the respondent. According to her," after the lapse of few days, the petitioner again started maltreating the respondent and she was again turned out of the house in wearing clothes in the second week of March, 1980." While pushing her out of the house the respondent gave a warning that she would be accepted in that house only if her father gave him a scooter. The respondent's attitude towards her was so callous and cruel that he even did not turn up to see his newly born son on April 3, 1980 in spite of his having been informed telegraphically.

(3.) It deserves to be mentioned here that the respondent, along with his petition under S.13 of the Act, also presented an application under O.32 of the Civil P. C. for the appointment of a guardian-ad litem on the ground that the appellant was of unsound mind and could not manage her affairs. A contest having been raised by her to the effect that she did not suffer from any mental infirmity, counsel for the respondent did not press that application and she was allowed to prosecute the proceedings herself. This is so very clear from the order of the Court dated March 25. 1981.