Courts Least Equipped To Infer 'Psychiatric Disorder' From Marital Incidents Without Expert Medical Evidence: Telangana High Court
Quashing a family court order restraining the wife from going near her husband during pendency of divorce proceedings on the ground of her alleged "psychiatric disorder", the Telangana High Court remarked that the courts are least equipped to arrive at such a finding in absence of any expert medical evidence.It said that thwarting free access of one individual to another, that too...
Quashing a family court order restraining the wife from going near her husband during pendency of divorce proceedings on the ground of her alleged "psychiatric disorder", the Telangana High Court remarked that the courts are least equipped to arrive at such a finding in absence of any expert medical evidence.
It said that thwarting free access of one individual to another, that too married persons, requires a high benchmark of justification. It remarked that family court does not disclose any such credible reasons.
On the family court order, a Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar said,
"our primary objection is to the Trial Court granting relief to the husband on the basis of the finding that the wife suffers from a “psychiatric” and “psychopathic” disorder. This conclusion is wholly bereft of any evidence, let alone medical evidence. The assumption that the wife suffers from mental disorder can only be arrived at on the basis of medical records and/or expert evidence. The Trial Court appears to have reached this finding solely on the basis of individual incidents which (allegedly) showed that the wife is suffering from anger management issues. In our view, such radical assumptions should be avoided at all costs since they would have an indelible impact on an individual's life - affecting not only her personal relationships, but also her social and professional standing".
The court said that Trial Court should have refrained from concluding that the husband required to be protected from the wife only by reason of the wife exhibiting such forms of psychiatric behaviour.
It said that the behaviour relied upon by the Trial Court is purely a "physiological – psychological condition" which requires specialised medical intervention.
"Courts are least equipped to arrive at such findings simply on the basis of daily incidents between warring couples in the absence of any expert medical evidence. The impugned order records that the appellant has a “psychic disorder” without recognizing that the word 'psychic' has an entirely different connotation which may not even signify a negative trait. Unfortunately, such words have been loosely used without due regard to the stigmatic repercussions on the appellant," the court added.
The appeal arose from an interim order passed by the family court in a divorce petition filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(ia)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty and mental disorder on the part of the wife.
The husband had also filed an interlocutory application seeking an injunction restraining the wife from coming near him, his house, and his workplace. He had alleged that wife suffers from psychic disorder since she had quarreled and behaved abnormally by raising her voice in front of the family members of the husband and maid servants which insulted him.
The Family Court allowed that plea based on the reason that the wife suffers from mental disorder and behaves abnormally in front of the husband's family members.
The High Court held that the Family Court had proceeded almost entirely on the husband's allegations, without meaningfully considering the wife's defence or counter-allegations.
It found the impugned order not only “unilateral, unreasonable and unreasoned,” but also noted that it dwelt on minute incidents in “unwarranted detail” before reaching severe conclusions with serious civil consequences.
The Bench further held that if a court were to assess the mental condition of a spouse in matrimonial litigation, such a finding must rest on proper medical records or expert evidence. It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Kollam Chandra Sekhar v. Kollam Padma Latha to emphasize that allegations of mental disorder in a divorce case must be proved by substantive evidence. Here, by contrast, the Family Court had moved from allegations of quarrels and marital discord to labelling the wife as suffering from serious psychiatric conditions, without any evidentiary basis whatsoever.
Holding that the Family Court's order suffered from serious infirmities and could not be sustained, the Division Bench allowed the wife's appeal and set aside the interim injunction.
Case Title: X v. Y
Case No.: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.494 of 2025
Appearance: Mr. S. Nagesh Reddy for the appellant; Mr. Avinash Desai, Senior Counsel, representing Mr. P. Vishweswara Nikhil, for the respondent.