A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Akhil Kumar upheld the dismissal of a husband's divorce petition filed under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, holding that he had failed to establish either cruelty or the requisite mental disorder on the part of his wife.

The case arose from the marriage of Mayank Kumar and Somya Kumari, solemnised on July 14, 2021, in Dhanbad, following which the couple began their matrimonial life in the United States. According to the husband, his wife had disclosed after marriage that she had not consented to the relationship voluntarily and had agreed to marry under pressure from her parents and relatives. He alleged that she displayed abnormal and violent behaviour, remained isolated from family members and suffered from mental health problems. He further claimed that her parents had disclosed that she had previously undergone treatment for a mental disorder in Mumbai.

The husband also alleged that there had been no consummation of the marriage and that his wife's conduct had caused him mental cruelty. He stated that in January 2023, when he was preparing to travel to India following his father's death, his wife's condition allegedly deteriorated, requiring hospitalisation at Wilmington Hospital in the United States. According to him, she was diagnosed with a psychotic disorder and anaemia.

The wife denied the allegations and maintained that she was not suffering from any mental disorder. She alleged that the husband and his family members had subjected her to mental pressure and cruelty by repeatedly accusing her of psychiatric illness. She also expressed willingness to continue living with her husband.

The husband subsequently approached the Family Court seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and mental disorder. By judgment dated December 16, 2024, the Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. II, Dhanbad, dismissed his petition. Aggrieved, the husband approached the High Court.

Examining Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the High Court explained that the provision contemplates two distinct grounds: incurable unsoundness of mind, and a mental disorder of such kind and extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.

Explaining why isolated instances of mental disorder cannot ordinarily satisfy the statutory requirement, the Court observed:

“From the wording of the provision, it can be said that the second part of the provision has wide scope. For this part, it is not necessary that mental disorder is incurable. However, the mental disorder must be of such kind and extent that the Court needs to be satisfied that it is not advisable to ask the petitioner to live with the respondent. The scope shows that there is no limit to the kind of mental disorder as no specific kind is mentioned. However, the term 'has been suffering' shows that the period of illness must not be too short or the petition should not be based on one or two instances showing such mental disorder.”

The Bench further held that the existence of the alleged mental condition must be established through expert evidence. It clarified that although a psychiatrist is an expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, the Court is not bound to accept the expert's opinion without scrutiny.

The Court noted that the husband had principally relied upon his own testimony, the testimony of another witness and a hospital discharge instruction slip from the United States.

Significantly, the husband admitted during cross-examination that the discharge papers did not record schizophrenia and referred only to “Altered Mental Status Unspecified”. The Bench found that no reliable evidence had been produced to establish an incurable mental disorder or a psychiatric condition of such severity that continued marital cohabitation could not reasonably be expected.

It also observed that no evidence substantiated the allegation that the wife had undergone psychiatric treatment since childhood or that her parents had concealed such a condition before the marriage. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Kollam Chandra Sekhar v. Kollam Padma Latha, (2014) 1 SCC 225, the High Court reiterated the importance of recognising that marriages may involve periods of illness and hardship.

On the separate allegation of cruelty, the Bench found that the husband's claims concerning violent conduct, an alleged knife attack and suicide attempts were not corroborated by independent witnesses, medical records, police reports or contemporaneous documents.

The Court further noted that the testimony of one of the husband's witnesses was substantially based on hearsay and could not establish matrimonial cruelty.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the husband had failed to prove either cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) or mental disorder of the requisite nature and severity under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and upheld the Family Court's refusal to grant divorce.

Appearance:

For the Appellant: Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate; Mr. Saurabh Sagar, Advocate

For the Respondent: None