Citations: R. Lakshmi Narayan Vs Santhi, AIR 2001 SC 2110
Date of Judgement: 01/05/2001
Equivalent Citation: 2001 4 SCC 688; 2001 3 SCR 329
Case No.: Appeal (civil) 5028 of 1999.
Case Type: Civil Appeal.
Petitioner: R. Lakshmi Narayan
Respondent: Santhi
Bench: Hon’ble Justice D.P. Mohapatra and Hon’ble Justice U.C. Banerjee.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Statutes Referred:
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Sections 5(ii), 5(ii) (b), 12(1) (b)
- Constitution Of India 1949; Article 136
Facts:
- On 01/11/1987, the petitioner, R. Lakshmi Narayan married the respondent following the Hindu rites and customs. It is vital to note that the marriage between the parties was an arranged marriage and they have met and talked to each other priorly.
- The couple lived together for 25 days and then parted their ways Later, on 12/02/1998 the appellant filed a petition seeking a decree that marriage is null and void under Section 5(ii) read with Section 12(1)(b).
- The petitioner alleged that the respondent (- wife herein) suffers from a chronic incurable mental disorder and is unfit to have a married life. The Appellant also alleged that the respondent had been suffering from an ailment since her childhood and she has no interest in marital life.
- The petitioner contended that the respondent married him under the pressure and the respondent’s parents disclosed later on being questioned about the daughter’s mental condition.
- Attempts of the appellant to cure the respondent proved futile and under this situation, he filed a petition before the Trial Court seeking nullity of marriage.
- Respondent refuted the allegations made by the petitioner. She asserted that she was not suffering from any mental ailment and she wanted to lead married life with the petitioner.
- The Trial Court after hearing the matter and assessing the produced evidence rejected the plea filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant filed an appeal against the order in the appellant court.
- The appellate court observed that the Trial Court had ignored the documentary evidence including the doctor’s prescription. The Court, considering the recorded statements and evidence, reversed the judgement of the Trial Court and allowed the plea in favor of the petitioner.
- Aggrieved by the judgement passed by the Appellate Court, the second appeal was filed by the respondent before the High Court. The High Court mainly considered whether the petitioner was aware of the mental condition of the respondent or not. Since the marriage between the parties was not caused by fraud or misrepresentation, the second appeal was allowed.
- This appeal by special leave was filed under Article 136 of the Constitution before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgement passed by the High Court.
Issues Involved:
- Whether the petition seeking a declaration of marriage as null and void under Section 12(1)(b) read with Section 5(ii) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 be admissible or not?
- Whether the Burden of Proof for the annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(b) beyond any reasonable doubt lies on the appellant or not?
Contention of Petitioner/Appellant:
- The Petitioner contended that the respondent suffered from a mental ailment and is unfit to lead a marital life.
- The Respondent, as alleged by the Petitioner, refused cohabitation with the petitioner and has herself admitted that she had been suffering from some mental disorder.
- It was also contended that the respondent had married under force by her parents and did not wish to live a marital life with her husband. The respondent’s father, on being questioned about the respondent’s health, informed that she had been treated for some mental disease before.
- Moreover, the Respondent’s father provided the appellant with the prescription issued by Dr. Papa Kumari of Chennai, where the respondent had undergone treatment.
- The mental condition of the respondent was of such nature that she was given an injection once a month and had to consume drugs in case of a headache.
- The appellant and his father had attempted to cure the respondent but failed in the same.
- Thus, under such circumstances, the appellant cannot live with the respondent, and the petition seeking nullity of marriage on the ground of insanity be admissible.
Contention of Respondent:
- Respondent Santhi refuted all the allegations made by the petitioner.
- The respondent denied suffering from any such chronic or incurable mental disorder. Also, the letters produced by the respondent sufficiently established the same.
- She contended that she had cohabitated with her husband and has never expressed any disinterest in living a marital life with the petitioner.
- To establish that the allegations made by the petitioner were false, she asserted that they had visited different places and temples together. She also contended that the couple led a happy life and was still willing to live a peaceful married life with the petitioner.
- Further, the respondent contended that the appellant was interested in a second marriage to receive more dowry, and so is why he was seeking a declaration for nullity of their matrimonial tie.
- The respondent’s inability to live a peaceful married life was because of the refusal of the appellant to continue with her.
Judgement:
- The Honorable Supreme Court observed the assessment of the Trial Court, which indicated that the claims of the appellant about the mental health of the respondent were not proper since it does not fulfills the conditions provided under Section 5(ii)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
- As per the Honorable Court, the judgement given by the High Court was not satisfactory since the learned judges had failed to formulate any question of law under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure.
- Also, the High court overlooked the relevant aspects of this matter and stressed only over the question of fraud and misrepresentation by the respondent’s parents.
- However, the Apex Court hearing the matter and considering all the necessary submissions made by the learned counsels held that the facts and circumstances of the case could not sufficiently establish that the respondent suffered from any such ailment for the marriage to be void.
- It is not reasonable to suggest that the respondent has suffered mental or physical disorder of such kind or to such an extent to be deemed unfit for marriage or procreation of a child.
- Thus, in this view, this case was not fit to be allowed, and the Supreme Court did not interfere with the judgement of the High Court exercising its power under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the Appeal stands Dismissed, with no costs.
Ratio Decidendi:
- The Court, after analyzing the relevant provisions under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 observed that the annulment of marriage on the ground of mental disorder depends upon the degree or extent of that defect to render the marriage void.
- The burden or the onus to prove that the other spouse is unfit for marriage on the ground of mental incapacity lies on the appellant.
- The appellant, Laxmi Narayan, failed to establish a case for the declaration of marriage as null and void on the ground of the mental ailment of his wife at the time of marriage under Section 5(ii)(b) of the Act.
- The facts presented by the Appellate Court that allowed the appeal nowhere suggested the fact that the respondent had been suffering from mental incapacity of such nature or to that extent as to be deemed unfit for marriage or procreation of a child.
- Mere finding that Shanthi was suffering from some mental issue and the couple did not cohabit during that period is not enough to satisfy the conditions laid in the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Conclusion:
From the above case, we can conclude that the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was just and appropriate. The Court was justified in denying the petition and has viewed that to brand the wife unfit for marriage and procreation of a child, it is necessary to prove that the ailment suffered by her is of such nature to cause an impossibility to have a routine married life.
Drafted By: Shivani Tiwary, School of Law DAVV.
Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider
Published On: October 29, 2021 at 16:00 IST