A.L. Bahri, J.@mdashThis appeal is by the husband Inder Bir Singh filed against the judgment and decree dated March 25, 1987, dismissing his petition filed u/s 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking annulment of the marriage.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on January 13, 1985 at Chandigarh. They stayed together during the night intervening January 13 and 14, 1985. The husband discovered that the wife''s behaviour qua him was abnormal and unusual. She was in a dazed condition and cold to approach. On his enquiring she told him that she was not in a fit condition and she took some medicine and she went into sound sleep. In the morning he informed about the abnormal behaviour of his wife to Lakhbir Singh and his wife Paramjit Kaur. His marriage thus remained unconsummated. The next day also she took tablets. On January 17, 1985, she was taken to General Hospital, Chandigarh, and Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha Jain was consulted. The doctor described her to be suffering from Schizophrenia. The doctor was informed by her that she had bean taking treatment from a doctor in Amritsar for the said disease. Dr. Jain prescribed some drugs. Her father was informed who took her away on January 17, 1985 to Amritsar. In this manner it was pleaded that his consent for the marriage was obtained by the wife and her parents by fraud as the factum of her disease that she was suffering from Schizophrenia was intentionally concealed by them. On this ground annulment of the marriage was prayed for. Avneet Kaur respondent contested the petition and denied being suffering from Schizophrenia. She also denied that her behaviour was abnormal or that the marriage was not consummated. She alleged that the husband and his parents harassed and humiliated her on account of insufficient dowry. She further alleged that she was tortured. She admitted that she was taken to Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha Jain who was under the influence of her husband''s father. In order to get rid of her, her father was summoned from Amritsar. Finding her in miserable condition she was taken away by her father She denied that consent of the husband to the marriage was obtained by fraud. Following issues were framed : --
(1) Whether the marriage between the parties is liable to be annuled for the reasons given in the petition ?
(2) Relief.
After evidence was produced by the parties, issue No 1 was decided against the husband and thus the petition was dismissed.
3. Sehizophrenia has been described having four stages in Modi''s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Twentieth Edition, at pages 397 and 398, as under:--
(1) Simple Schizophrenia, (2) Hebephrenia, (3) Katatonia, and (4) Paranoid Schizophrenia.
Schizophrenia is a disease of mental disorder or mental illness. This is one of the grounds provided for seeking divorce u/s 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In that case it is necessary to establish that such a disease is of incurable nature and is of such a kind to an extent that one spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. This would show intensify of the disease which is to be taken into consideration at the time of granting divorce. However, u/s 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, if the consent of the spouse for the marriage was obtained by force or by fraud as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the other spouse, the marriage can be annuled. Under this Section it is not necessary for the spouse approaching the Court to substantiate the kind of the mental disorder and its extent that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. What is required to be established u/s 12 of the Act is that the other spouse was suffering from mental disorder at the time of the marriage and this fact was concealed. In other words that consent of the petitioner was obtained without disclosing the material fact relating to the other spouse The aforesaid four varieties of Schizophrenia were noticed in Rameshwari Gupta v. Ram Narain Gupta (1987) 1 D. M. C. 263 . In the first variety i.e. Simple Schizophrenia, the patient loses interest in his best friends, who are few in number and gives up his hobbies. He has conflicts about sex. He loses all ambitions and drifts along in life swelling the ranks of the chronically unemployed. Complete disintegration of the personality generally does not occur but when it does, it occurs after a number of years.
4. In the second variety, i.e. Hebephrenia, disordered thinking is the outstanding characteristic of this type of schizophrenia. There is great incoherence of thought, periods of wild excitement occur and there are illusions and hallucinations I need not refer to the other twp varieties which are acute forms of schizophrenia.
5. A case u/s 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the wife was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of marriage was under consideration of this Court in Tarlochan Singh v. Jit Kaur (1986 1) 89 P. L. R. 542. S.S. Sodhi, J observed as under :--
"Where the wife his been found to be suffering from schizophrenia and husband and wife have lived together for only a short period, it is difficult to visualise an atmosphere of conjugal bliss, so necessary to ensure continual sound mental state of the wife, even if she assumed to be of that state now. The husband would always be under the apprehension of the wife suffering a relapse. In such a situation, it would not be reasonable to expect the husband to live with his wife and lead a normal life."
It was further held as under :--
"Where by an arranged marriage, a normal healthy person is bound in matrimony to one with a history of mental ailment, as in the present case, it must indeed raise a presumption, rebuttal no doubt, of matrimonial fraud. It is reasonable to assume that n the absence of special reason or circumstances, no one would willingly consent to marriage except to a person physically and mentally fit. No such special reasons are forthcoming in the present case."
6. Such a matter was also under consideration of the Kerala High Court in Thulasi Bai v. C.V. Manoharan and Ors. 1990 (1) H. L. R. 318. In that case the wife lived with the husband for about 19 days and still it was held that it did not amount to condonation of matrimonial offence. The wife was suffering from schizophrenia. She used to take sleeping pills. Her behaviour was strange. She used to speak incoherent without any sense. She used to laugh, cry and talk without any rhyme or reason. On that ground the marriage was annuled.
7. Keeping in view the position of law as discussed above, evidence in the present case is appraised. Some facts are not disputed which may briefly be noticed, before discussing the evidence. The marriage of the parties was solemnized on January 13, 1985. Together they spent one night of January 13 and 14, 1985. On January 16, the husband suffered mental shock and became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital. On January 17, Avneet Kaur-wife was taken to the hospital and Dr. Sudha Jain was consulted. On that very day her father, who had been called, took her away to Amritsar from Chandigarh PW 2 Inderbir Singh, petitioner, the husband, deposed in detail as to what happened on the first night of their marriage which was spent in the hotel Piccadily. He cried to talk to her but she talked irrelevantly. She told him that he should start going to the club, taking liquor. After some time she swallowed some tablets with water. Her eyes became stable. She had fixed gaze and her face was horrible. He tried to consummate the marriage but there was no response. Next day they returned to their home and he informed his aunt Paramjit Kaur as to whit had happened during the night. He further stated that on January 14 and 15 his wife took medicines as and when needed. On January 16, 1985, he got a shock and became sense-less. During cross examination he denied the suggestion that the marriage was consummated on the first night. He denied other suggestions of dowry or maltreatment. PW 3 is Lakhbir Singh Chadha, who had also spent the night in the adjoining room in hotel Piccadily. In the morning, the petitioner informed him that the girl looked towards him like a witch and when he tried to consummate the marriage by arousing her passion she remained like a statue, his daughters were also in the hotel who went to the room of the petitioner and met the respondent. They reported that she was not normal. PW 4 is Balwant Singh father of the petitioner. He observed that the girl was not normal on the morning of January 14, 1985 when the couple reached his house. According to him, he took her to Dr. Sudha Jain in the General Hospital on January 17, 1985 and Paramjit Kaur accompanied him. The doctor told him that the lady was suffering from schizophrenia. He also stated that on January 16, 1985, Inderbir Singh petitioner had suffered a shock and was not in senses. On January 16, 1985, he sent a telegram to father of the respondent who came on January 17, 1985 and took away the girl. They were not informed about the disease prior to the marriage. PW 5 Paramjit Kaur also supported the petitioner s case. Inderbir Singh informed her about the condition of the respondent and her behaviour on the first night. She also observed for 2-3 days and found her mentally deranged. Her looks were horrible. She herself came to the kitchen and wanted food. She herself took the plate and took the sweets and fruit. Thereafter, she started laughing. On January, 17, 1985, she was taken to the General Hospital, Sector 16 and she accompanied them to Dr Sudha Jain. PW 1 Dr Sudha, Jain, Medical Officer of General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, deposed about medically examining the respondent on January 17, 1985. She was talking irrelevantly, laughing incongruously and behaving in an odd manner in the presence of her relations and herself. According to the doctor she was suffering from schizophrenia. She was irrelevant and incoherent. The respondent informed the doctor that she was taking some medicine. On the other hand Avneet Kaur respondent while appearing as RW 1 denied all the allegations of the petitioner. According to her the marriage was consummated on the first night. She never suffered any mental ailment. She only stated that her husband wanted divorce on account of dowry. Her father gave dowry of about rupees one lac. They found fault with every article. RW 2 Harbans Singh father of Avneet Kaur supported her that she never had any mental ailment or treatment. Incidentally he did not state anything regarding demand of dowry articles by the petitioner or his parents.
8. Some documents were produced by the petitioner. Mostly, they are letters. However, during arguments no reference has been made to these letters. Exhibit P. 1 is the prescription slip issued by Dr. Sudha Jain prescribing certain medicines. As is argued such medicines are prescribed for mental ailments.
9. From the perusal of the oral evidence produced by the appellant, no manner of doubt is left that the behaviour of the respondent from the time of her marriage which was solemnized on January 13, 1985 upto January 17, 1985, when she left Chandigarh in the company of her father for Amritsar, was abnormal indicating that she was suffering from mental ailment. Even on the first night she was talking irrelevantly suggesting that her husband should take liquor or visit dubs. After she had taken pills she started gazing with horrible face and her husband was unable to consummate the marriage. Even on the following day, as stated by Paramjit Kaur PW 5, the behaviour of the respondent was abnormal as on visiting the kitchen she started taking food laughingly and she looked horrible. Not only that father of the petitioner lost no time in taking the respondent to the General Hospital, Chandigarh to consult Dr. Sudha Jain. The behaviour of the respondent even before Dr. Sudha Jain was such that she rightly formed the opinion that Avneet Kaur was suffering from schizophrenia. Even there in the presence of the doctor the respondent was talking irrelevantly, laughing incongruously and behaving in an odd manner. She also admitted before the doctor that she had been taking some medicines earlier.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that much reliance should not be placed on the evidence of Dr. Sudha Jain who hardly examined the respondent for a few minutes. It was incumbent upon the appellant to produce evidence that before the marriage the respondent was in fact suffering from schizophrenia and was taking treatment. This contention cannot be accepted. The appellant or his relations were not in the know of the mental condition of Avneet Kaur before her marriage. Thus they were not expected to collect evidence regarding mantel condition of the respondent before marriage.
11. The version put forth by the respondent with regard to insufficient dowry articles, the appellant or his relations started grumbling immediately after the marriage cannot be accepted for the simple reason that father of the respondent did not say anything and Avneet Kaur respondent herself did not specifically give details of the demands and the persons who raised such demands. Her general statement that on account of dowry the appellant wanted divorce, is of no consequence.
12. Immediately on coming to know about the mental condition of the respondent, the appellant broke the contacts and on 17th January, 1985, Avneet Kaur was taken by her father to Amritsar. Even if both the husband and the wife had lived for 3 days, it cannot be said that the husband condoned the fault. The fact of mental condition of the respondent was kept concealed at the time of obtaining consent of the appellant. It has been established from cogent evidence produced by the appellant that he was kept in dark at the time of the marriage about the mental condition of the respondent. He has succeeded in establishing the ground for annulment of marriage as provided u/s 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Finding of the lower Court on issue No. 1 is, therefore, reversed.
13. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. The marriage of the parties is annuled u/s 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
