# /Defendants v. Ratanjay Pradhan

- **Citation:** (2008) 1 ILRA 218
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-02-28
- **Case number:** First Appeal No.18 of 2008
- **Bench:** S.U. Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/defendants-v-ratanjay-pradhan-41016
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri Awadh Narain Rai

Counsel for Opposite Party:
Sri Rakesh Pande
Sri C.K. Rai
Sri Faujdar Rai
Sri A.K. Rai

Hindu Marriage Act 1956-Section 13
(i)(iii)-Divorce-Since the first day of
marriage-No
response
of
natural
behaviour
given
by
wife-due
to
schizophrenia-fully
proved
by
documentary evidence-finding recorded
by the Trail Court-fully justified-need no
interference-considering
her
welfarehusband to deposit Rs.50,000/- in F.D.
for 10 years-conditional direction for
release of interest issued.

Held: Para 13

The court below has recorded finding
that the lady since the first day of
marriage did not respond to normal
situations in a normal way. From the
evidence on record, it was fully proved
that schizophrenia suffered by the lady
was of such magnitude which warranted
divorce as held by the Supreme Court in
AIR 1988 SC 2260 "Ram Narain Gupta
Vs. Rameshwari Gupta" referred in AIR
2006 SC 1662 "Vineeta Saxena Vs.
Pankaj Pandey" (Para-12).
Case law discussed:
AIR 1988 SC 2260, AIR 2006 SC 1662

## Text

218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
be detained in connection with any other
case.

Petition allowed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.02.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

First Appeal No.18 of 2008

Hirdaya Narain Rai and others

...Appellants/Defendants
Versus
Ratanjay Pradhan
...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Awadh Narain Rai

Counsel for Opposite Party:
Sri Rakesh Pande
Sri C.K. Rai
Sri Faujdar Rai
Sri A.K. Rai

Hindu Marriage Act 1956-Section 13
(i)(iii)-Divorce-Since the first day of
marriage-No
response
of
natural
behaviour
given
by
wife-due
to
schizophrenia-fully
proved
by
documentary evidence-finding recorded
by the Trail Court-fully justified-need no
interference-considering
her
welfarehusband to deposit Rs.50,000/- in F.D.
for 10 years-conditional direction for
release of interest issued.

Held: Para 13

The court below has recorded finding
that the lady since the first day of
marriage did not respond to normal
situations in a normal way. From the
evidence on record, it was fully proved
that schizophrenia suffered by the lady
was of such magnitude which warranted
divorce as held by the Supreme Court in
AIR 1988 SC 2260 "Ram Narain Gupta
Vs. Rameshwari Gupta" referred in AIR
2006 SC 1662 "Vineeta Saxena Vs.
Pankaj Pandey" (Para-12).
Case law discussed:
AIR 1988 SC 2260, AIR 2006 SC 1662

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan. J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants as well as learned counsel for
the respondent, who has appeared through
caveat.

2. This appeal is directed against
judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007
passed by A.D.J. Court No.2, Ghazipur in
matrimonial case No.84 of 2003, Ratanjay
Pradhan Vs. Smt. Suman and others.
Through
the
impugned
judgment,
marriage in between plaintiff respondent
and appellant No.2/ defendant No.1 has
been annulled and declared void mainly
under Section 13 (1)(iii) of Hindu
Marriage Act, which is quoted below:

"13. Divorce. (1) Any marriage
solemnized, whether before or after the
commencement of this Act, may, on a
petition presented by either the husband
or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of
divorce on the ground that the other
party-
(i) & (ii) not relevant.

(iii) has been incurably of unsound
mind, or has been suffering continuously
or intermittently from mental disorder of
such a kind and to such an extent that the
petitioner cannot reasonably be expected
to live with the respondent.

Explanation. -In this clause,-

(a) the expression "mental disorder"
means
mental
illness,
arrested
or
incomplete
development
of
mind,
psychopathic disorder or any other
1 All] Hirdaya Narain Rai and others V. Ratanjay Pradhan
219
disorder or disability of mind and
includes schizophrenia;

.
(b) the expression "psychopathic
disorder" means a persistent disorder or
disability of mind (whether or not
including sub-normality of intelligence)
which results in abnormally aggressive or
seriously irresponsible conduct on the
part of the other party, and whether or
not it require or is susceptible to medical
treatment; or]"

3. The court below held that the wife
Smt Suman is suffering from some mental
dis-order in the form of schizophrenia.

4. The first dispute, which cropped
up at the initial stage of the hearing, was
regarding present residence/ custody of
the wife. On the very first date, it was
stated by learned counsel for the husband
respondent that Smt. Suman- the wife was
in the custody of her uncle appellant
No.1, which was disputed by learned
counsel for appellants. Accordingly, on
16.01.2008, I directed S.S.P., Ghazipur to
make enquiry and inform the Court
regarding present residence/ custody of
the lady. However, afterwards learned
counsel for the husband respondent stated
that under some confusion he had given
statement on 16.01.2008 and the fact is
that the lady is still with husband and as
the mental condition of the lady is not
good, hence unless appellant No.1 comes
to take her, she can't be turned out from
the house. Learned counsel for the
appellant since day one was asserting that
the lady was still with the husband
respondent.

5. The second question is regarding
maintainability of appeal. In the divorce
petition, the wife Smt. Suman was sued
through her uncle Sri Uma Shanker Rai
(deceased), who has been impleaded as
appellant No.3. A deceased ought not to
have
been
impleaded
as
appellant.
Appellant No.2 is described as Smt.
Suman, however Vakalatnama does not
bear her signatures and learned counsel
for the appellant has stated that the
husband, in whose custody Smt. Suman
is, did not allow appellant No.1 to obtain
her signatures on the Vakalatnama.
However, I do not propose to decide the
question as to whether the appeal is
maintainable or not. I propose to decide
the appeal on merit.

6. The marriage was solemnized on
08.06.2003 and marriage petition was
filed within two or three weeks. The court
below through order dated 13.08.2004
appointed appellant No.1 as guardian of
the wife.

7. The husband pleaded that since
the day one, the behaviour of the wife was
not normal and she appeared to be
abnormal and he got her examined and
treated by various doctors, who were
expert in treating the patients of mental
dis-order. The Presiding Officer of the
court below summoned the lady and
examined her. She only gave her name
and father's name. Thereafter, when the
names of her mother, husband and fatherin-law were asked, she kept quite. She
also kept quite when her educational
qualification were asked. When she was
asked her school's name in which she
studied, she kept quite. When she was
asked that how many days before she was
married, she kept quite. When asked that
with whom she had to come to Court, she
said that she was brought forcibly. When
it was asked that who forced her, she did
not reply. When she asked that what sort
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
of case was filed against her, she kept
quite. When asked whether anyone
assaulted her, she kept quite.

8. The Presiding Officer of the court
below on 31.05.2004 passed an order that
wife Smt. Suman should be got examined
medically by Chief Medical Officer,
Ghazipur. The C.M.O. intimated that Smt.
Suman was referred to S.S.P.G. Hospital,
Varanasi, which in turn referred her to
Mental Hospital, Varanasi, where she was
examined. The report of Mental Hospital,
Varanasi was referred to Chief Medical
Superintendent through Rishi Prasad and
the said report was also sent to the Court.
According
to
the
report,
she
was
examined
in
mental
hospital
from
02.06.2004 to 12.06.2004 Dr. Amrendra
Kumar, who had examined her, gave the
report, which was Paper No.71 ga. Dr.
Amrendra Kumar appeared as witness and
proved the report.

9. Thereafter she was brought to the
Mental Hospital, Varanasi on 22.06.2004
for treatment. Thereafter she was again
brought in August, September, October,
December, 2004, February, April, June,
July, August, September, October and
November, 2005.

10. Dr. Amrendra Kumar in his
statement as P.W. 4 proved his report and
stated that he found Smt. Suman suffering
from mental dis-order, known by the
name of schizophrenia, code F-20. He
also stated that since about two years
before his inspection, the lady was
suffering from the said disease and it was
a case of the chronic schizophrenia. He
stated that his report was based on the
inspection and test conducted by him. He
further stated that there were very little
chances of cure of the lady Smt. Suman.
Doctor also stated that schizophrenia was
different from mental dis-order.

11. In the impugned judgment, it has
also been mentioned that even though on
behalf of mother and uncle of the lady, it
was
stated
that
she
passed
the
examination of Intermediate, however
when ever she came to court, she put her
thumb impression and not the signatures.

12. I fully agree with finding of the
fact
recorded
by
the
court
below
regarding condition of the wife. Those
finding are based on correct appraisal of
the evidence. The evidence of the Doctor
and the conduct of the lady observed by
the court, when she appeared herself was
the most independent evidence. The
husband proved that within a week of the
marriage he started consulting the Doctors
about the mental condition of his wife. In
view of this, the court below did not
believe and in my opinion rightly the
assertion of the appellant that Smt. Suman
became a mental case due to torture of her
husband. Even after obtaining decree for
divorce, husband is keeping her with him
further proves the said fact.

13. The court below has recorded
finding that the lady since the first day of
marriage did not respond to normal
situations in a normal way. From the
evidence on record, it was fully proved
that schizophrenia suffered by the lady
was of such magnitude which warranted
divorce as held by the Supreme Court in
AIR 1988 SC 2260 "Ram Narain Gupta
Vs. Rameshwari Gupta" referred in
AIR 2006 SC 1662 "Vineeta Saxena Vs.
Pankaj Pandey" (Para-12).

14. Accordingly, the court has got
absolutely no option but to accept the
1 All] Anita Mishra and others V. State of U.P. and another
221
findings of fact recorded by the court
below. Learned counsel for the appellant
has not been able to put slightest dent in
the findings and reasoning of the court
below.

15.

Accordingly,
appeal
is
dismissed.

16. However, the court persuaded
the learned counsel for the parties to come
out with some such suggestion or solution
which could safeguard the future of the
lady to some extent. Learned counsel for
the appellant states that in case so much
money is paid by the husband, which may
yield about Rs.1000/- interest per month,
if kept in Bank, then suffering of the lady
would be mitigated to some extent and the
said amount would be utilized in her
maintenance. Learned counsel for the
husband stated that husband was mainly
depending upon his father and his father
had other persons also to maintain, hence
by maximum they could pay Rs.30,000/-
as alimony.

17. Even through the court is of the
opinion that due to her mental condition
Smt. Suman deserves proper alimony,
however only so much alimony may be
awarded, which is within the possible
means of the husband.

18. Accordingly, I direct husband to
pay Rs.50,000/- as alimony to the wife
Smt. Suman. He must deposit Rs.50,000/-
in some Nationalized Bank in the name of
Smt. Suman for ten years' fixed period
with interest payable monthly to appellant
No.1. The appellant No.1 must utilise the
said amount of interest for the welfare of
Smt. Suman. After ten years, appellant
No.1 would be entitled to reinvest the said
amount. However, if condition of the wife
is improved during these ten years and
she becomes capable to handle her affairs,
then the interest must be given to her and
she will be at complete liberty to receive
the principal amount after ten years.

19. If Government has got some
such fund, which may be made available
to the ladies like appellant No.2 in this
appeal that on an application being filed
in that regard by appellant, Government
should sanction proper amount with
proper conditions for appellant No.2.

 Appeal dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE (MRS.) SAROJ BALA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 5348 of
2003

Anita Mishra and others
...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & another...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Manish Tiwary
Sri Ashwini Kumar Awasthi

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri K.K. Tripathi
Sri Dinesh Tiwari
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-482Application
for
quashing
Criminal
proceeding-offence under Section 448,
406
IPC-applicant
is
daughter
of
opposite Party No. 2-after death of her
mother the name of applicant as well as
Opposite Party No. 2 jointly recordedbefore her marriage she was residing in
the house in question-No allegation in
FIR for offence of intermediation, insult