Court Favours Weaker Party - Mental illness

Court Favours Weaker Party
• Pramatha Kumar Maity vs. Ashima Maity
• R.S. Shyamala and other Petitioners vs. G. Rajasekhar
• Gopalakrishnan Nair vs. Thembatty Ramani
Pramatha Kumar Maity vs. Ashima Maity
Filed under: Section 13(1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act
Appellant: Pramatha Kumar Maity
Respondent: Ashima Maity
Court: In the High Court of Calcutta
Citation: AIR 1991 CALCUTTA 123
Judges: A.M.Bhattacharjee and A.K.Nayak
Facts
Pramatha Kumar Maity claimed that his wife Ashima Maity was suffering from mental disorder of an incurable nature. Pramatha stated that Ashima was violently aggressive and a source of danger to himself and his family. Therefore, he filed for divorce on the grounds of mental disorder.
Ashima revealed that she had indeed suffered from some sort of a mental disorder a few years ago and was admitted for about a month in a Mental Hospital in Calcutta and that she was now totally cured. The Trial Court had rejected Pramatha petition. Therefore, he filed the present appeal.
Observations of the Court
It was noted that Pramatha had failed to collect evidence from his parents or any doctor to support his allegation that Ashima was violent towards his parents and that she was suffering from an incurable mental disorder.
Further, the Court while examining the relevant provisions observed that he failed to prove that her mental disorder was of such a nature that he could not be expected to live with her. The Court observed that Ashima was an uneducated person without any means of support of her own, while Pramatha was a government servant who was not willing to maintain her.
In view of this, it was also observed since Ashima was the weaker party locked in an unequal fight, therefore, her plea should be accepted. In the present case, the evidence was against the husband. Therefore, the Court did not interfere with the order of the lower Court.
Sections Referred:
• Section 13(1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1995)
Cases Referred:
• State Bank of India vs. Amal Kumar Sen, 1988 Lab IC 1585: (1988) 92 Cal WN 846
• Dastane vs. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534: (1975) 2 SCC 326
• Kartik vs. Manu, AIR 1973 Cal 545
• White vs. White, AIR 1958 SC 441: 1958 AII LJ 671
• Bipin Chandra vs. Probhapati, AIR 1957 SC 176: 1957 SCC 48
• Sudhangshu Mohan Chakraborty vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1988) 92 Cal WN 102
Quotes from the Judgment
"The legislature has not made unsoundness of mind or mental disorder, by itself, a matrimonial fault unless the unsoundness is incurable and the disorder is such as to disable(d) the person to become a reasonably tolerable matrimonial partner".

R.S. Shyamala and other Petitioners vs. G. Rajasekhar
Filed Under: Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908)
Appellant: R.S. Shyamala and other Petitioners
Respondent: G. Rajasekhar
Citation: AIR 1995 Karnataka 228
Court: In the High Court of Karnataka
Judges: Kumar Rajaratnam
Facts
The R.S. Shyamala and G. Rajasekhar were married in Bangalore. After marriage, they started living together in Bangalore itself and had two children. At the time this case was filed, Rajasekhar had the custody of the children and both of them were living with him.
After about 17 years of marriage, Shyamala had left her matrimonial home in Mysore due to certain differences between the couple. Rajasekhar then filed a petition for divorce which was still pending at the Civil Court of Mysore. His contention was that he should be granted divorce as his wife was a mental patient who could not be cured. He also stated that Shyamala’s father had taken her to NIMHANS, Banglore for her treatment.
Thereafter Rajasekhar made an application to the High Court that both the cases should be tried at Mysore. According to him, both his children were at school there and his presence in Mysore was necessary so that he could look after them. He further stated that he was working in the Department of Botany at Mysore, and the work involved teaching because of which his presence would be necessary at Mysore.
The case of Shyamala was that she had been driven out of her matrimonial home and had been forced to go to Bangalore to reside with her father. According to her she was ready and willing to look after her children and live with her husband. She also contended that Rajasekhar had managed to obtain certain medical certificates because of his influence and for this reason, he had been urging that the case should be tried in Mysore.
Shyamala also stated that she was unemployed and was staying with her father because of which she would not be able to afford the travel expenses if the case was tried at Mysore. It was further stated that being a lady it would be difficult for her to stay overnight alone at Mysore. Therefore, according to Shyamala the cases should have been tried at Bangalore.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that Rajasekhar had himself stated that his wife was suffering from a mental disorder, which was incurable. In view of these allegations the Court opined that Shyamala could not be forced to go to Mysore for the hearing. In view of this the Court allowed the appeal. The case filed by Rajasekhar at Mysore was transferred to the Court of Principal Family Court, Bangalore. The petition filed by Rajasekhar for the transfer of the cases at Mysore was accordingly dismissed.
Sections Referred:
• Section24 of the Civil Procedure Code


Gopalakrishnan Nair vs Thembatty Ramani
Filed under: Sections 12 (1) (a) & 25 Hindu Marriage Act
Appellants: Gopalakrishnan Nair
Respondent: Thembatty Ramani
Citation: AIR 1989 KERALA 331
Court: In the High Court of Kerala
Judges: V.Sivaraman Nair & M.Fathima Beevi
Facts
Gopalakrishnan Nair and Thembatty Ramani were married to each other. Gopalakrishnan had field a petition seeking an order for nullity of his marriage on the ground that he was epileptic and impotent and that the marriage had not been consummated for the above reasons. The petition was allowed and Ramani made an application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month till she married again.
Gopalakrishnan filed objections that the application should not be allowed since the marriage was null and void. On his behalf, it was argued that maintenance could be granted only in cases of judicial separation or divorce. The Trial Court found that maintenance was applicable in all cases of divorce, dissolution of marriage, judicial separation or annulment of marriage. The Court then passed an order that Gopalakrishnan should pay Rs. 150/- to Ramani until her death or till she remarried. Against this order Gopalkrishnan filed the present appeal.
Arguments made on behalf of Goplakrishnan Nair
It was argued on behalf of Gopalakrishnan that the declaration that the marriage was invalid implied that the spouses were never married at all. Further, it was argued that maintenance could be given only to spouses of disrupted marriages and not strangers who were accidentally drawn into a void relationship, which had no legal effect.
Observations of the Court
On the point raised on behalf of Gopalakrishnan, the Court saw no reason to accept the argument and held that there was no dispute that the parties were married and that it was a legal and valid marriage at the time till the Court disrupted it by a decree of nullity. Further, it was also observed that the terms did not apply to a situation where the petition was made stating that the marriage was not consummated since he was suffering from epilepsy and that he was impotent. However, since that point was not raised in the present appeal, it proceeded to look into the issue in question i.e grant of maintenance.
In this regard, the Judge held that Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act provided that when the Court disrupted a marriage by its decree, whatever be its reason, it could order for payment of maintenance to the disadvantaged spouse. In this case specially, where the husband himself had demanded the nullity of the marriage due to his own fault, it gave the Court all the more reason to direct him to ensure that Ramani is maintained by him till she remarried or till the Court otherwise ordered
With this order, the appeal was dismissed.
Sections Referred:
• Sections 12(1)(a) & 25 Hindu Marriage Act