Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 677 (CHH)

Ankit Verma S/o Shri Mukesh Verma v. Ankita Verma W/o Shri Ankit Verma

2024-09-25

RAJANI DUBEY, SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. 1.The instant appeal is filed by the husband against the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 4-A/2023 (Ankit Verma Vs. Smt. Ankita Verma & Another) whereby the application under Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the husband (appellant) has been dismissed. 2.Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 23.01.2022 at Central Point Hotel, Korba, as per the Hindu rites & rituals. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 started cohabitation with the appellant at Korba. Soon after one month of the date of the marriage, respondent No. 1 in the intervening night of 27-28.02.2022 at about 2:00 am, started acting weird and was very aggressive in her behaviour. She turned off the fan and exhaust of the room and also threw the blankets in the night. The entire episode lasted for around 2-3 hours and during this time, she also assaulted the appellant. The very next day i.e. on 28.02.2022, she climbed on a tree in the courtyard and started eating raw leaves. The attack of insanity and weird behaviour on respondent No. 1 left the appellant and his entire family clueless. The appellant thus informed his in-laws about the incident, on which they came to Korba on the same night i.e. 28.02.2022. The father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and the husband of his sister-in-law all came to Korba. Respondent No. 1 continued to behave aggressively even in their presence, which was also recorded on the mobile phone. On further enquiry from the in-laws, they admitted that respondent No. 1 is suffering from a mental disorder and she has been treated by one Dr. Ashok Trivedi since 2013. The appellant thus, along with the in-laws consulted a psychiatrist Dr. Neelima Mahapatro at Korba, the said doctor advised that it would not be safe to continue the pregnancy since respondent No. 1 would require medicine for her psychiatric complication. Thus, the prescription was drawn in this regard, in the presence of the in-laws. Respondent No. 2 requested the said doctor to refer them for Dr. Swayamprava Bahal, CIP, Ranchi. Further, the case is that respondent No. 1 was pregnant for 06 weeks on 01.03.2022, however on the advice of the said doctor Neelima Mahapatro and another Dr. Thus, the prescription was drawn in this regard, in the presence of the in-laws. Respondent No. 2 requested the said doctor to refer them for Dr. Swayamprava Bahal, CIP, Ranchi. Further, the case is that respondent No. 1 was pregnant for 06 weeks on 01.03.2022, however on the advice of the said doctor Neelima Mahapatro and another Dr. Jyoti Shrivastava (Gynecologist), the pregnancy was terminated with the consent of the mother of respondent No. 1. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 went to her maiden house along with her parents and siblings on the same day. 3.In reply, the respondents had submitted an application in which it has been stated that respondent No. 1 had pursued B.E. degree in Computer Science in the year 2016 from Rungta Engineering College, Bhilai. All the documents in this regard are with the appellant in Korba. Respondent No. 1 was one month pregnant and she was forcibly aborted due to which the condition of respondent No. 1 became critical due to excessive bleeding. Her blood count decreased to 4 per cent and blood formation stopped, for which she was treated in Ranchi. The marriage of the appellant and respondent No. 1 is not a void marriage. 4.The trial Court framed a question as to whether the appellant/husband is entitled to a decree declaring the marriage solemnized between him and respondent No. 1/wife as null and void. The respondents have not produced any evidence or document on their behalf and remained ex-parte before the trial Court. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the appellant, the trial Court dismissed the application of the appellant filed under Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 5.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and has also failed to appreciate the documents brought on record. The learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that the entire case of the appellant was based on the grounds of recurrent attacks of insanity and the said fact being concealed at the time of marriage, which is an act of fraud practice upon the appellant and his family. The learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that the entire case of the appellant was based on the grounds of recurrent attacks of insanity and the said fact being concealed at the time of marriage, which is an act of fraud practice upon the appellant and his family. A bare reading of Section 12 of the Act of 1955 would reveal to this Hon’ble Court that a marriage may be annulled by a decree of nullity if there is any contravention of the condition specified in Clause II of Section 5 of the Act of 1955. The learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that the grounds urged for the decree of nullity and annulment of the marriage were covered under Section 12(1)(b) & (c) of the Act of 1955. However, the learned trial Court has completely erred in appreciating the law applicable in this regard and the entire marshalling of the evidence has been conducted on such misconception of law. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Yogesh Puri Goswami vs. Smt. Pallavi Goswami, passed in FAM No. 52 of 2014 on 24.08.2017. 6.No one appeared for the respondents during the final hearing of the case, though notice has been served. 7.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 8.Ankit Verma (PW-1) filed an affidavit under Section 18 Rule 4 of C.P.C. in which it has been stated that he told his in-laws about the incident of midnight of 27.02.2022 and the morning of 28.02.2022, then his in-laws apologized to him and his family and clarified about the previous illness of respondent No. 1/wife that respondent No. 1 was treated by Bhilai’s psychiatrist and consultant Dr. Ashok Trivedi, 16,- Shreyas Medical Center, opposite Sudhir X-ray, GE road Bhilai, District Durg (C.G) continuously from 08.08.2013 till before the marriage. He further stated that the medical slip related to the treatment of the illness of respondent No. 1 was sent by respondent No. 2 to the appellant’s mobile. On observing this, it became clear to the appellant that the said disease of respondent No. 1 has been continuing since 2013. His in-laws suppressed the disease of respondent No. 1 from him and his family and got respondent No. 1 married to him. 9.Dr. On observing this, it became clear to the appellant that the said disease of respondent No. 1 has been continuing since 2013. His in-laws suppressed the disease of respondent No. 1 from him and his family and got respondent No. 1 married to him. 9.Dr. Neelima Kumari Mahapatra (PW-3) stated that she has been working as a private psychiatrist in the Advanced Psychiatrist Clinic since the year 2019. On 01.03.2022, Ankita Verma W/o Ankit Verma came to her for treatment. At that time the patient was aggressive, and her condition was very bad. At the time she was brought, she had stopped taking medicine, so the symptoms of the disease were visible on the patient, she did not know how to behave with whom. She further stated that the patient used to get very angry. She did not sleep at night. She used to vandalize, abuse and threaten, to cure we had given medicines. The prescription attached in the case dated 01.03.2022 has been given by her. She does not have the original copy with her. Father of the patient wanted to take her to Ranchi, then she referred her to Ranchi Mental Hospital. Therefore, she had sent the original copy of the prescription. She also stated that the patient came to her when she was 06 weeks pregnant. She told her that taking medicine can harm the baby. Taking medicine is necessary, therefore the patient must have abortion. She also told her that taking medicine can make the baby disabled and the patient’s disease can be passed on genetically to the child as well. The patient’s disease is a chronic disease, therefore, she will have to remain on medicine for the rest of her life and if she stops taking it, the disease can become more serious. The patient can harm herself and others as well. Therefore, such patients must take medicine continuously. 10.The appellant has filed documents with regard to the medical treatment of respondent No. 1, which shows that the respondent wife has been taking treatment in OPD since 08.08.2013 and suffering from mental disorder/schizophrenia before marriage. 11.This Court in the matter of Yogesh Puri (supra) after observing the various judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court held in paras 17 & 18 as under:- “17. It is thus fairly well settled that when the respondent is found to be suffering from incurable mental disorder viz. 11.This Court in the matter of Yogesh Puri (supra) after observing the various judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court held in paras 17 & 18 as under:- “17. It is thus fairly well settled that when the respondent is found to be suffering from incurable mental disorder viz. Schizophrenia, it may amount to cruelty to the spouse applying for divorce and at the same time when such serious disease was not informed to the appellant/husband and it was concealed from him at the time of obtaining his consent for marriage, it furnishes a cause of action for declaring the marriage a nullity under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. 18. It the case at hand, there being abundance of evidence on the basis of which the trial Court itself has found that the wife is suffering from Schizophrenia and the said illness was not informed to the husband at the time of obtaining his consent for marriage, it was a fit case for declaring the marriage a nullity under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Act. The Trial Judge seems to have unnecessarily impressed by the provisions under Section 5 (ii)(b) of the Act to hold that there being no evidence that the wife is not able to procreate the child, it satisfies the requirement of valid marriage, therefore, it cannot be declared a nullity. It was never the case of the appellant/husband that she was incapable of procreating the child. His case, from the very beginning, is that a fraud was committed upon him by concealing material fact concerning mental disorder viz. Schizophrenia of the wife, therefore, he is entitled for a decree under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Act. The trial Court’s reasoning while refusing to grant a decree in favour of the appellant suffers from misreading of legal provisions.” 12.In this case also it is clear from the documents that respondent No. 1/wife is suffering from mental illness before her marriage and this disease was not informed to the husband and it was concealed from him at the time of obtaining his consent for marriage. 13.In order to find out the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment, few provisions of the Act needs reference. “5. 13.In order to find out the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment, few provisions of the Act needs reference. “5. Conditions for a Hindu marriage.- A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:- xxxxxxxxxxxx (ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party- (a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or (b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children. or (c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity. * Section 12 (1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act provided as under:- “12 (1)(b) – that the marriage is in contravention of the condition specified in clause (ii) of Section 5.” 14.Thus, in light of the above judgment and facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the learned trial Court while refusing to grant decree in favour of the appellant suffers from misreading of the legal provisions and the appellant is entitled for decree under Section 12 (1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 15.In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 27.04.2023 is hereby set aside. The marriage solemnized between the parties on 23.01.2022 is dissolved and declared as nullity. 16.A decree be drawn up accordingly.