Chhattisgarh High Court | Failure to Prove Schizophrenia With Expert Evidence Bars Annulment | Burden of Proof Under Section 12 Hindu Marriage Act Reaffirmed
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad has dismissed an appeal filed against an order of the Family Court, Durg. The Division Bench upheld the Family Court’s dismissal of an application seeking annulment of marriage or in the alternative divorce on grounds of fraud, cruelty, and desertion. The Court held that the appellant-husband did not produce cogent and reliable evidence to substantiate allegations of mental illness of the respondent-wife and further recorded that the burden of proof remained unfulfilled. The Division Bench affirmed that the Family Court’s findings were proper and in accordance with law, thereby dismissing the appeal and sustaining the decree previously passed.
The dispute arose from a matrimonial relationship solemnized on 03.03.2008 at Bhilat, District Durg, as per Hindu rites and customs. From the marriage, two daughters were born, namely Amrita, aged about 11 years, and Pranali, aged about 5 years. The appellant contended that prior to the marriage, the respondent and her family members had represented that she was physically and mentally healthy. On this representation, the appellant consented to the marriage.
After the marriage, the appellant alleged that the respondent exhibited abnormal behaviour, including shouting, damaging household items, using abusive language, and beating the children without reason. Upon enquiry, the appellant discovered that the respondent was taking psychiatric medicines, which she initially claimed to be multivitamins. Subsequently, on medical examination, the respondent was allegedly diagnosed with schizophrenia. The appellant claimed that this mental condition existed since birth and was deliberately concealed by the respondent and her family members at the time of marriage.
The appellant stated that despite several efforts to manage her condition and attempts at reconciliation, the respondent left the matrimonial home in October 2018 along with one daughter and never returned. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking annulment of the marriage on the ground of fraud. In the alternative, the appellant prayed for divorce on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) and desertion under Section 13(1) (ib). The matter was registered as Civil Suit No.171/2022 before the Family Court, Durg.
Despite repeated notices, the respondent failed to appear and was proceeded ex parte on 06.07.2022. The appellant led evidence and examined witnesses in support of his case. The Family Court, after evaluating the pleadings and evidence, dismissed the application for annulment and divorce on 04.01.2023. The Court held that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent was suffering from schizophrenia since birth or at the time of marriage.
Aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh by way of FA(MAT) No.55 of 2023, challenging the Family Court’s dismissal.
During the appeal, counsel for the appellant, Advocate Tapan Kumar Chandra, argued that the respondent and her family members had deliberately suppressed material facts regarding her mental illness. He contended that this amounted to fraud within the meaning of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1955. He further submitted that the appellant had proved allegations of cruelty by showing that the respondent’s behaviour was abusive and violent. It was also argued that prescriptions showing psychiatric treatment had been filed and remained unrebutted as the respondent did not contest the proceedings.
The appellant’s counsel stated that during a community meeting on 17.08.2018, the respondent’s father had admitted that his daughter was suffering from mental illness. Counsel argued that the respondent’s voluntary departure from the matrimonial home in October 2018 constituted desertion.
In opposition, counsel for the respondent, Advocate Pushkar Sinha, submitted that the appellant had made vague and unsubstantiated allegations. It was argued that no reliable medical evidence had been produced to conclusively prove that the respondent was suffering from schizophrenia since birth. The contention of fraud was termed baseless. It was also submitted that the parties had lived together for about ten years and had two children, which demonstrated the validity of the marriage. The delay in approaching the Court was argued to be fatal to the appellant’s case under Section 12. Further, it was submitted that the ex parte proceedings were flawed as proper service of notice had not been ensured.
The Family Court’s findings were defended on grounds that the allegations of cruelty were general in nature and unsupported by independent witnesses. It was argued that the respondent had left the matrimonial home due to harassment and not voluntarily.
The High Court recorded that the Family Court had rejected the application under Section 12 of the Act of 1955 on the premise that the appellant failed to substantiate allegations with legally admissible evidence. The Court stated: “although the appellant has produced certain medical documents and prescriptions purportedly indicating that the respondent was suffering from schizophrenia, the same were not proved in accordance with law, as the concerned medical professionals were neither summoned nor examined as witnesses.”
It was further noted: “no expert opinion was brought on record to establish that the respondent had been suffering from schizophrenia since birth or at the time of marriage, which is essential to attract the provisions of Section 12(1)(b) or 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1955.”
The Court recorded that the parties had lived together for nearly ten years and had two children, which showed that the marital relationship was sustained for a significant period. The Court observed: “no independent witnesses, including neighbours or family members, were examined to corroborate the allegations of abnormal behaviour or cruelty attributed to the respondent.”
The Court stated: “it is incumbent upon the petitioner to establish, through clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent was suffering from a mental disorder of such a nature or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and procreation of children. In the absence of any medical expert’s testimony, and without any clinical diagnosis confirmed by competent witnesses, such a serious ground cannot be accepted as proved.”
Relying on precedent, the Court cited Sm. Anima Roy v. Probodh Mohan Roy (1968 SCC OnLine Cal 89), noting: “in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, where mental illness is pleaded as a ground for divorce or annulment, it is essential to establish that the mental disorder is of such a kind and extent that it is not only incurable, but also renders the spouse unfit for marital obligations.”
Similarly, in R. Lakshmi Narayan v. Santhi, (2001) 4 SCC 688, it was recorded: “suppression of a serious mental disorder at the time of marriage constitutes a valid ground for annulment under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1955.”
The Court also referred to X v. Y, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1654, observing: “the mere filing of prescriptions or absence of rebuttal by the respondent does not absolve the appellant from discharging the burden of proof through cogent and trustworthy evidence.”
The High Court concluded: “although the respondent-wife remained ex parte, the appellant-husband was still required to prove his case on the strength of his own evidence. It is a settled principle that non-appearance of the opposite party does not amount to admission of allegations, and the appellant must discharge the legal burden of proof independently.”
The Court issued the following directives: “In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant-husband has failed to discharge the burden of proof required to seek annulment of marriage under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The findings of the learned Family Court, which dismissed the appellant’s application after a thorough appreciation of the evidence, are found to be just, proper, and in accordance with law and therefore, warrant no interference in appeal.”
The Court further directed: “In the result, we find no merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the order and decree dated 04.01.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg in Civil Suit No. 171/2022 is hereby affirmed. There shall be no order as to cost(s).”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate
Case Title: XXX v YYY
Case Number: FA(MAT) No. 55 of 2023
Bench: Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
