# 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 945 PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL

- **Citation:** [2011] 14 S.C.R. 945
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-09-30
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 8402 of 2011
- **Bench:** P. Sathasivam, · Dr. 8.S. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/14-addl-s-c-r-945-pankaj-mahajan-v-dimple-kajal-27580
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s.13 - Husband filed petition
for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce on grounds
A
B
of (I) 'cruelty' and (ii) incurable 'unsound mind' of wife -
C
Whether appellant-husband made out a case for divorce
· against the respondent-wife on grounds of 'cruelty' and
'unsound mind' - Held: The appellant established and proved
both the grounds - From the side of appellant, various doctors
and other witnesses were examined to prove that respondent
D
was suffering from mental disorder - All the four doctors/ .
Psychiatrists who treated the respondent - PW-1, PW-2, PW-·
3 and PW-7, and prescribed medicines also expressed the
view that it was "incurable" - Even respondent and her father
themselves admitted in their cross-examination that
E
respondent took treatment from the said Doctors for mental
illness - It was proved beyond doubt that respondent was
suffering. from mental disorder! Schizophrenia and the
appellant was not reasonably expected to live With her - No
doubt, after marriage, the couple was blessed with a female
F
child and at present she is studying in a school, however,
whenever the child was with respondent, the respondent was
not taking appropriate care - Many a times the respondent
casually threw the child facing opposite to her - PW-5,
landlord of the parties, highlighted several instances when the
G
respondent used to quarrel with appellant and he had to face
humiliation in front of others because of her behavior - The
appellant placed adequate materials to show that the
respondent use<.1 to give repeated threats to commit suicide
and once even tried to commit suicide by jumping from the
H
945
946
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A terrace - The acts and conduct of the respondent were such
as to cause pain, agony and suffering to the appellant which
amounted to cruelty in matrimonial law - Further, appellant
and respondent were living separately for the last more than
nine years and there is no possibility to unite them - Divorce
B petition filed by appellant accordingly allowed.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
s. 13 - Dissolution of
marriage by decree of divorce on ground of 'unsound mind'
- Held: The onus of proving that the other spouse is incurably
of unsound mind or is suffering from mental disorder lies on
C the party alleging it - It must be proved by cogent and clear
evidence.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
s. 13 - Dissolution of
marriage by decree of divorce on ground of 'cruelty' -
D Repeated threats to commit suicide - Held: Cruelty postulates
treatment of a spouse with such cruelty as to create
reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful
or injurious for him to live with the· other party -
Giving
repeated threats to commit suicide amounts to cruelty.
E
The appellant-husband filed petition under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of
marriage by a decree of divorce on grounds of (i) 'cruelty'
and (ii) incur.able 'unsound mind' of the respondent-wife.
F The District Court accepted the claim of cruelty and
granted decree of divorce in favour of the appellanthusband. Aggrieved, the respondent-wife filed a!'.)peal
before the High Court. The High Court completely
rejected the claim of divorce even under unsound mind
and set aside tho judgment and decree passed by the
G triis I court.
The qw:istivn which arose for consideration in the
in~tant appeal· was whether the appellant-husb&:1nd ·had
made out a case for divorce on grounds of 'cruelty' and
H 'unsound mind'.
PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL
947
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1. Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Ac:t, 1955
specifies the grounds on which a decree of divorce may
A
be obtained by either party to the marriage. The onus of
proving that the other spouse is incurably of unsound
8
mind or is suffering from mental disorder lies on the party
alleging it. It must be proved by cogent and clear
evidence. [Para 6] [956-B]
1.2. In the case on hand, since the appellant-husb

## Text

_Characters 0–39,841 of 59,880. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39841 for what follows._

[2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 945
PANKAJ MAHAJAN
v.
DIMPLE @ KAJAL
(Civil Appeal No. 8402 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2011
[P. SATHASIVAM AND· DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s.13 - Husband filed petition
for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce on grounds
A
B
of (I) 'cruelty' and (ii) incurable 'unsound mind' of wife -
C
Whether appellant-husband made out a case for divorce
· against the respondent-wife on grounds of 'cruelty' and
'unsound mind' - Held: The appellant established and proved
both the grounds - From the side of appellant, various doctors
and other witnesses were examined to prove that respondent
D
was suffering from mental disorder - All the four doctors/ .
Psychiatrists who treated the respondent - PW-1, PW-2, PW-·
3 and PW-7, and prescribed medicines also expressed the
view that it was "incurable" - Even respondent and her father
themselves admitted in their cross-examination that
E
respondent took treatment from the said Doctors for mental
illness - It was proved beyond doubt that respondent was
suffering. from mental disorder! Schizophrenia and the
appellant was not reasonably expected to live With her - No
doubt, after marriage, the couple was blessed with a female
F
child and at present she is studying in a school, however,
whenever the child was with respondent, the respondent was
not taking appropriate care - Many a times the respondent
casually threw the child facing opposite to her - PW-5,
landlord of the parties, highlighted several instances when the
G
respondent used to quarrel with appellant and he had to face
humiliation in front of others because of her behavior - The
appellant placed adequate materials to show that the
respondent use<.1 to give repeated threats to commit suicide
and once even tried to commit suicide by jumping from the
H
945
946
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A terrace - The acts and conduct of the respondent were such
as to cause pain, agony and suffering to the appellant which
amounted to cruelty in matrimonial law - Further, appellant
and respondent were living separately for the last more than
nine years and there is no possibility to unite them - Divorce
B petition filed by appellant accordingly allowed.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
s. 13 - Dissolution of
marriage by decree of divorce on ground of 'unsound mind'
- Held: The onus of proving that the other spouse is incurably
of unsound mind or is suffering from mental disorder lies on
C the party alleging it - It must be proved by cogent and clear
evidence.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
s. 13 - Dissolution of
marriage by decree of divorce on ground of 'cruelty' -
D Repeated threats to commit suicide - Held: Cruelty postulates
treatment of a spouse with such cruelty as to create
reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful
or injurious for him to live with the· other party -
Giving
repeated threats to commit suicide amounts to cruelty.
E
The appellant-husband filed petition under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of
marriage by a decree of divorce on grounds of (i) 'cruelty'
and (ii) incur.able 'unsound mind' of the respondent-wife.
F The District Court accepted the claim of cruelty and
granted decree of divorce in favour of the appellanthusband. Aggrieved, the respondent-wife filed a!'.)peal
before the High Court. The High Court completely
rejected the claim of divorce even under unsound mind
and set aside tho judgment and decree passed by the
G triis I court.
The qw:istivn which arose for consideration in the
in~tant appeal· was whether the appellant-husb&:1nd ·had
made out a case for divorce on grounds of 'cruelty' and
H 'unsound mind'.
PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL
947
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1. Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Ac:t, 1955
specifies the grounds on which a decree of divorce may
A
be obtained by either party to the marriage. The onus of
proving that the other spouse is incurably of unsound
8
mind or is suffering from mental disorder lies on the party
alleging it. It must be proved by cogent and clear
evidence. [Para 6] [956-B]
1.2. In the case on hand, since the appellant-husband
approached the District Court for a decree of divorce, the
C
onus was on him to prove the grounds put-forth by him.
[Para 7] (956-C]
2.1. From the materials placed on record, it is clear
that the appellant-husband has brought cogent materials
0
on record to show that the respondent-wife is suffering
from mental disorder, i.e., Schizophrenia. From the side
of the appellant-husband, various doctors and other
witnesses were examined to prove that the respondentwife was suffering from mental disorder. All the four
E
doctors/Psychiatrists who treated the respondent-wifePW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-7-, prescribed medicines and
also expressed the view that it is "incurable". Even the
respondent-wife and her father themselves admitted in
their cross-examination that the respondent had taken
treatment from the said Doctors for mental illness. Thus,
F
it is proved beyond doubt that the respondent-wife is
suffering from mental disorder/ Schizophrenia and it is
not reasonably expected to live with her and the
appellant-husband has made out a case for a decree of
divorce and the decree should have been granted in
G
favour of the appellant-husband and against the
respondent-wife. [Para 18] [964-E-H; 965-A]
2.2. The High Court negatived the plea of the
appellant-husband under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act on
H
948
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A the ground that the appellant-husband has merely
reproduced the wordings of the Section without applying
the same to the facts of the case and that it was not
pleaded that it was a case of continuous or intermittent
disorder. ·The aforesaid reasoning of the High Court is
B completely erroneous and contrary to the material on
record. [Para 19] [956-8]
2.3. The appellant-husband had specifically pleaded
before the High Court that the respondent-wife was
suffering from Schizophrenia, which is a kind of mental
C disorder and he had pointed out specific incidents to
show that the respondent-wife was not of sound mind.
The averments made in the divorce petition filed by the
appellant make it clear that the appellant-husband, after
narrating specific incidents of abnormal behaviour of the
D respondent-wife had duly pleaded that she was suffering
continuously/ intermittently from 'incurable' mental
disorder of such a nature that he cannot be reasonably
expected to live with her. It was also stated therein that
due to her unsoundness, the respondent-wife was not
E able to lead a married life and thus the appellanthusband was entitled to a decree of divorce. Apart from
this, the appellant-husband had brought cogent evidence
on record to show that the respondent-wife was not in a
fit state of mind whereas the respondent-wife could not
F lead any acceptable evidence to rebut the same. The
respondent and her father admitted her mental illness and
periodic treatment from the doctors. No doubt, it was
pointed out that after the marriage, the couple was
blessed with a female child and at present she is
G studying in a school and there is no dispute about the
same, however, it is clear from the respondent's evidence
that from the date of delivery of child, the child was
pericdically taken care of by .her grand-parents. Also
whenever the child was with respondent-wife, she (the
H mother) was not taking appropriate care which is clear
PANKAJ. MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL
949
from the evidence of the appellant-husband (PW-4) and
A
their landlord, PW-5. One incident which was referred to
was that many a times the respondent-wife casually threw
the child facing opposite to her. Under these
circumstances, the High Court ought to have accepted
the case of the appellant-husband. [Para 20] [965-C; 9678
A-F]
3.1. The High Court rejected the plea of the appellanthusband regarding cruelty on the ground that apart from
his statement, theμ' is no evidence to prove the same and
PW-5, being hearsay, his evidence was not reliable. As
C
far as PW-5 is concerned, the High Court only referred
to his cross-examination without even adverting to the
examination-in-chief wherein he had categorically stated
about cruelty meted out by respondent-wife to the
appellant-husband. It is clear from the evidence of PW-5
D
that the respondent-wife was .not of sound mind and she
did not look after the household work rather she used to
give threats to commit suicide. She did not even make
food for the appellant-husband and he had to arrange the
same from outside. Apart from this, she used to
E
embarrass the appellant-husband before his landlord's
family and because of her weird behaviour and threats
to commit suicide, the appellant-husband was forced to
leave the rented accommodation. The landlord, PW-5 also
highlighted several instances when the respondent-wife
F
used to quarrel with her husband and he had to face
humiliation in front of others because of her behaviour.
Inasmuch as PW-5 was living in the same house on the
ground floor and the appellant-husband and the
respondent-wife were living on the first floor, the said G
witness being the eye-witness to the cruelty meted out
by the respondent-wife to the appellant-husband, as he
had himself seen the behaviour and the activities. of the
' respondent-wife including humiliation and threats of
committing suicide, cannot be thrown out. Under those
H
950
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A circumstances, the observation of the High Court that the
statement of PW-5 is only hearsay is liable to be rejected.
[Para 21) [967-G-H; 968-A; 969-C-F]
3.2. In addition to the evidence, the appellanthusband had categorically pleaded in his petition for
B divorce about the cruelty meted out to him. He narrated
the incidents when she used to give threats to commit
suicide and had even tried to commit suicide by jumping
from the terrace and also pushed him from the staircase
resulting in fracture in his right forearm. Due to her mental
C disorder, on various occasions, she even slapped him.
She was also most disrespectful to his parents and she
even forced him to live separately from them. His
evidence in the form of an affidavit filed before the trial
Court is available in the paper book wherein he narrated
D all the sufferings meted out by her. All the details in the
form of assertion in the affidavit clearly show that the
appellant-husband faced cruelty at the hands of the
respondent on several occasions. [Para 22) [969-G-H;
970-A; 972-H; 973-A]
E
3.3. It is well settled that giving repeated threats to
commit suicide amounts to cruelty. When such a thing
is repeated in the form of sign or gesture, no spouse can
live peacefully. In the case on hand, the appellanthusband placed adequate materials to show that the
F respondent-wife used to give repeated threats to commit
suicide and once even tried to commit suicide by
jumping from the terrace. Cruetty postulates treatment of
a spouse with such cruelty as to create reasonable
apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful or
G injurious for him to live with the other party. The acts of
the respondent-wife are of such quality or magnitude and
consequence as to cause pain, agony and suffering to
the appellant-husband which amounted to cruelty in
matrimonial law. From the pleadings and evidence, the
H following instances of cruelty are specifically pleaded
PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL
951
and stated. They are: i.) Giving repeated threats to commit A
suicide and even trying to commit suicide on one
occasion by jumping from the terrace; ii) Pushing the
appellant from the staircase resulting into fracture of his
right forearm; iii). Slapping the appellant and assaulting
him; iv) Misbehavin~ with the colleagues and relatives of B
the appellant causing humiliation and embarrassment to
him; v) Not attending to household chores and not even
making food for the appellant, leaving him to fend for
himself; vi) Not taking care of the baby; vii) Insulting the
parents of the appellant and misbehaving with them; viii) c
Forcing the appellant to live separately from his parents;
ix) Causing nuisance to the landlord's family of the
appellant, causing the said landlord to force the appellant
to vacate the premises; x) Repeated fits of insanity,
abnormal behaviour causing great mental tension to the 0
appellant; xi) always quarreling with the appellant and
abusing him; xii) Always behaving in an abnormal
manner and doing weird acts causing great mental
cruelty to the appellant. [Para 23) [973-B-H; 974-A-D]
3.4. The pleadings and evidence of both the parties E
clearly show the conduct of the respondent-wife towards
the appellant-husband. It cannot be concluded that the
appellant-husband has not made out a case of cruelty at
the hands of the respondent-wife. The appellant-husband
had placed ample evidence on record that the F
respondent-wife is suffering from "mental disorder" and
due to her acts and conduct, she caused grave mental
cruelty to him and it is not possible for the parties to live
with each other, therefore, a decree of divorce deserves
to be granted in favour of the appellant-husband. In G
addition to the same, both appellant-husband and the
respondent-wife are living separately for the last more
than nine years. There is no possibility to unite the chain
of marital life between the appellant-husband and the
respondent-wife. [Para 24] [97 4-E-H]
H
952
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
4. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the
case, it is clear that the impugned order of the High Court
resulted in grave miscarriage of justice to the appellanthusband, more particularly, the High Court failed to
consider the relevant material aspects from the pleadings
s and the evidence, the ultimate cof)clusion cannot be
sustained. The appellant-husband established and
proved both grounds in terms of Section 13 of the Act.
The divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband
stands accepted and a decree of divorce is hereby
c passed dissolving the marriage of the appellant with the
respondent. The appellant-husband is directed to pay an
amount of Rs. 2 (Two) lakhs as alimony to the
respondent-wife in two equal instalments within a period
of three months and to deposit Rs. 3 (Three) lakhs in the
0
name of his daughter in the shape of three FDRs in a
nearest nationalised bank in three equal instalments
commencing from January, 2012 ending with June, 2012.
On attaining majority, the daughter is permitted to
withdraw the amount. Till such period, the respondentE wife is permitted to withdraw accrued interest once in
three months directly from the bank from the said deposit
for the benefit and welfare of their daughter. [Para 25)
[975-A-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
F
8402 of 2011.
G
H
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2009 of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No.
123-M of 2006.
Nidesh Gupta, Tarun Gupta, S. Janani for the Appellant.
B.K. Satija and H.D. Talwani for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL
953
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the fiQal judgment and
order dated 06.08.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab
& Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. M-123 of 2006 whereby
A
the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent
8
herein and set aside the judgment and decree dated
29.04.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge(Ad-hoc)-
cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Ropar filed under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marr-iage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act').
3. Brief facts:
C
(a) The marriage of Pankaj Mahajan-appellant husband
and Dimple @ Kajal, respondent-wife, was solemnized on
02.10.2000 at Amritsar. After the marriage, the parties
cohabited and resided together as husband and wife at o
Amritsar in the parents' house of the appellant-husband, but
later on shifted to a rented house in Tilak Nagar, Shivala Road,
Amritsar. On 11.07.2001, a female child was born, who is now
in the custody of the respondent-wife.
(b) After the marriage, the appellant-husband found that the
respondent-wife was acting in very abnormal manner, as she
used to abruptly get very aggressive, hostile and suspicious in
nature. In a fit of anger, she used to give threats that she would
bring an end to her life by committing suicide and involve the
appellant-husband and his family members in a criminal case,
unless she was provided a separate residence. On one
occasion, she attempted to commit suicide by jun:iping from the
terrace but was saved because of timely intervention of the
appellant-husband.
(c) Succumbing to the pressure of the respondent-wife, the
appellant-husband shifted to a rented house on 28.11.2001 at
a monthly rent of Rs.3,200/- and started living with her, but the
behaviour of the respondent-wife became more aggressive'
and she repeated threats of suicide even in the rented house.
E
F
G
H
954
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A On enquiry, the appellant-husband came to know that the
respondent-wife was suffering from acute mental depression
coupled with schizophrenia even prior to the marriage and was
taking treatment for the same. The appellant-husband hoping
that the respondent-wife would become alright took her to
B various doctors, but her mental condition did not improve and
she became more and more violent and aggressive. She
insulted and humiliated the appellant-husband in front of his
colleagues and relatives several times and even on one
occasion she pushed the appellant-husband from the staircase
c causing fracture in his right forearm.
(d) On 23.03.2002, the appellant-husband wrote a letter to
his mother-in-law stating therein that the respondent-wife was
repeatedly threatening to commit suicide and even on
19.04.2002, he wrote a letter to the SSP, Amritsar regarding
D the factum of repeated threats to commit suicide given by the
respondent-wife. On 24.05.2002, the appellant-husband filed a
petition under Section 13 of the Act in the District Court at
Amritsar for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. By
order dated 29.04.2006, the Additional District Judge, Ropar,
E granted a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant-husband.
(e) Being aggrieved by the above-said order, the
respondent-wife filed FAO No. M-123 of 2006 before the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court, by
F order dated 06.08.2009, allowed the appeal filed by the
respondent-wife and set aside the judgment and decree dated
29.04.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge(Ad-hoc)-
cum- Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Ropar. Aggrieved by
the said decision, the appellant-husband has preferred this
G appeal before this Court by way of special leave petition.
H
4. Heard Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel for
the appellant-husband and Mr. B.K. Satija, learned counsel for
the· respondent-wife.
PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Discussion:
955
A
5. It is not in dispute that the petition for dissolution of
marriage for granting a decree of divorce under Section 13 of
the Act came to be filed by the appellant-husband before the
District Court at Amritsar. The marriage was solemnized 8
between the parties at Amritsar on 02.10.2000. Since the case
of the appellant-husband as well as the respondent-wife has
already been narrated, there is no need to traverse the same
once again. The fact remains that it was the appellant-husband
who approached the court for a decree of divorce on the
grounds of 'cruelty' and 'unsound mind' of the respondent-wife C
which is incurable, hence we have to see whether the appellanthusband has made out a case for divorce on these grounds.
6. Section 13 of the Act, which is useful for our present
purpose, reads as under:-
D
"13. Divorce (1) Any marriage solemnised, 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 partyE
(i) xxx
(i-a) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated
the petitioner with cruelty; or
(ib) xxx
(ii) xxx
F
(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been
suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder G
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,-
H
956
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
(a) the expression "mental disorder" means mental illness,
arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic
disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and
includes schizophrenia; .... ."
8
Section 13 specifies the grounds on which a decree of divorce
may be obtained by either party to the marriage. The onus of
proving that the other spouse is incurably of unsound mind or
is suffering from mental disorder lies on the party alleging it. It
must be proved by cogent and clear evidence.
C
7. In the case on hand, since the appellant-husband has
approached the District Court for a decree of divorce, the onus
is on him to prove the grounds put-forth by him. As regards the
ground alleged by the appellant-husband for a decree of
divorce i.e. the respondent-wife is suffering from unsound mind/
D · mental disorder/schizophrenia, apart from his own evidence as
PW-4, various Doctors, who treated her and other witnesses
were also examined. From the side of the appellant-husband,
Dr. Paramjit Singh (PW-1), Dr. Ravinder Mohan Sharma (PW2), Dr. Virendra Mohan (PW-3) and Dr. Gurpreet lnder Singh
E Miglani (PW-7), who had given treatment to the respondent-wife
for mental disorder, were examined.
F
8. Dr. Paramjit Singh (PW-1 ), Professor and Head
Psychiatry Department, Medical College, Amritsar in his
evidence stated as follows:-
"The respondent remained admitted in my Department at
Amritsar from 17.12.2001to28.12.2001. This disease is
Bipolar Affective Disorder. I treated her during this period.
She was admitted in Emergency because her disease
G
was in quite serious stage. In this disease, the patient can
commit suicide. When she came, she was aggressive and
irritable. If the proper treatment is not yiven to the
respondent then her aggressive nature can be prolonged.·
The respondent Kajal was treated by me by giving electric
H
shock for four times during her stay in the ward M.R .. I. i.e.
PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL
957
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Magnetic Resonance Imaging. MRI has got no concern
A
with the dise,ase with which the respondent was suffering.
This disease is treatable but not curable. I have seen the
certificate issued by me which is Ex:P1. It bears my
signatures and is correct Ex. P2 i.e. Discharge Certificate.
I have brought the original record of the Department
B
concerning the respondent both in-door as well as outdoor. A certified copy of the same attested by me is Ex.
P3. These are correct according to the original record
brought by me today in the court. The respondent was
brought to the Hospital for her admission and treatment by c
Sh. S.K. Mahajan son of later Sh. Gian Chand and Pankaj
Mahajan. I have seen the receipts today in the court which
relate to our hospital and the same are Ex. P4 to Ex. P7
and Ex. P8 is the receipt regarding room rent of our
Hospital. On 08.10.2002, father of the respondent had
D
brought her to our hospital and she was treated by me as
well as other doctors of department of our hospital from
08.10.2002. After the discharge from the Hospital, the
respondent was brought to our hospital for treatment by her
father on 22.01.2002, 02.02.2002, 09.02.2002,
15.04.2002, 08.08.2002, 08.10.2002, 21.11.2002,
05.02.2003 and 20.06.2003."
(Emphasis supplied)
E
In cross-examination, he admitted that when the respondentF
wife was discharged from the hospital, she was not perfectly
alright, however, she was able to return home. He further
admitted that in the original record of Ex. P3 some entries were
made by him and some by junior doctors, who worked with him.
All the entries made therein are correct. He also stated that
G
during the treatment, he did not notice abnormal behaviour of
the respondent-wife.
9. Dr. Ravinder Mohan Sharma (PW-2), Senior Medical
Officer, Punjab Mental Hospital, Amritsar, stated as under:
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
958
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
"According to file No. 57914 the patient was examined in
the out door by Dr. Charu Chawla, Senior Resident whose
handwriting I identified as she has been working with me.
After examining the patient and recording the history, she
has diagnosed her to be a case of Bipolar Affective
Disorder with which I agreed and advised her treatment
in my own hand. There is another entry dated 16.01.2002
again in my own hand where I had advised her treatment.
The second file No. 58803 is in the hand of Dr. Purnima
Singh, who after examining presented the case to Dr.
Manjit Singh who made a diagnosis of depressive episode
and advised her medical treatment dated 21.02.2002. I
identified the handwriting of Dr. Purnima Singh and Dr.
Manjit Singh as I had been working with them. I have seen
the original outdoor ticket of respondent and the same are
Ex. P11 and Ex. P12. As per the history recorded in file
No. 58803, there is a mention of suicide ideas and threats
and it is recorded that she had attempted suicide once.
As per the record, hers is a history of abusive and irritable
behaviour. On 16.01.2002 she was advised injection by
me because she was irritable and restless. It is not a
simple yes or no answer to the question whether the
disease is curable or not. It is an episodic illness which
patient getting episodes of mental illness and with
treatment in between she can remain normal. The intensity
and frequency of these episodes is highly unpredictable
and varies from patient to patient. Generally, the frequency
increases with every episode. The disease of the
respondent is treatable but cannot be definitely say
curable. MRI has got nothing to do with this disease of
respondent."
(Emphasis supplied)
In cross-examination, he reaffirmed what he had stated in
examination-in-chief.
PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL
959
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
10. Dr. Virendra Mohan (PW-3), M.D. Psychiatry,
A
Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. stated as follows:-
"Patient Dimple, aged 23 years, female (single) a/o Shri
Prem Kumar, village Shivaji Nagar, House No. 810/11
Ludhiana was admitted on 22.05.1998 and discharged on
B
06.b6.1998. She was suffereing from mental disorder at
that time. She was diagnosed C'S Chronic Paramoid
Schizophrenia for the last four years. She got admitted by
her father Shri Prem Kumar, and the history of the patient
was described to me. I have recorded the history as told c
by her father. He told that she was having mental
symptoms for the last 4 to 5 years. The sleep was less.
She was having acute psychotic symptoms at the time of
admission. I have mentioned the history of the patient in
the register which I have brought today, and the attested
D
true copy of the same is Ex.PW3/As she was admitted indoor because she showed acute mental symptoms. She
had paranoid symptoms. She was suicidal and also she
could harm herself and others. The patient was restless
and she could harm and attack others as well, and could
cause injury. It has been recorded in the history of the
patient that her Nana had been suffering from the mental
disease. There was no test for diagnosing this disease
from which the respondent was suffering. Only the history
tells about the earlier condition of the patient. I cannot say
if the disease for which the respondent was suffering is
definitely curable or not. This disease is known for
relapses. There is no direct relationship in the stress or
strain with the disease. This disease is not related to nose
or throat. There can be no finding in MRI regarding this
E
F
kind of disease. There may be suicidal tendency of such
G
type of person suffering from this disease. The
respondent was admitted in the hospital due to abnormal
behaviour. I had observed that she passed stool -in her
cloth, she has visual hallucination. During her admission,
she also stated that she wanted to marry her cousin and
H
A
B
c
D
960
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
she was also laughing herself. She was admitted twice in
my mental Hospital at Dharampur. I got signatures of father
of the respondent in my register, whenever she got
admitted by her father in my hospital and the register bears
the signatures of her father. Second time, she was
admitted by her father Prem Kumar on 28.09.1999 and
was discharged on 05.10.1999. That time she was more
excited and more elated and at that time the diagnosis
was quarry mania. This time she did not have any paranoid
symptoms. Her address was recorded this time 810/11
Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana. Usually, if patient remains
symptoms free for two years they can get married, but
other partner should know the problem so that the
treatment should be continued."
(Emphasis supplied)
In cross-examination, PW-3 stated that during the treatment in
his hospital, the respondent-wife responded very well to the
treatment. No suicidal action was taken by her during the
treatment in his hospital for the second time. He also stated
E that if the patient remained symptoms free then she is
manageable. According to him, as per the records, the
respondent-wife was manageable.
11. Dr. Gurpreet lnder Singh Miglani (PW-7), Associate
Professor and lncharge, Department of Psychiatry, Guru Ram
F Dass Medical Hospital, Amritsar stated as under:-
"! remained posted in Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib Charitable
Hospital at Ludhiana from 1995 to 1998. I was working
there as Consultant for Psychiatry. I have seen the original
G
file produced in the Court today relating to Dimple d/o
Prem Kumar r/o Shastri Nagar, H.No. 257-A Ludhiana.
Dimple was got admitted in our Hospital on 15.06.1996
at 06:50 a.m. by her father Prem Kumar in the Emergency
Ward. She was suffering from a very violent behaviour
H
and she has to be given Electric Convulsive Therapy
PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL
961
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
(ECT) on the same day in the operation theater.
A
Subsequently also five ECTs were given as her violence
was not being controlled along with other anti psychotic
drugs. A diagnosis of F 2004 was made according to ICD
10 at the time of discharge on 15.07.1996. She was
labeled as suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia with
B
incomplete remission and discharged on stable
condition. Due consent for ECTs in operation theater
under general anesthesia were taken from the father of the
patient."
(Emphasis supplied) C
In cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say exactly
about the disease of the respondent-wife whether it can be
treatable or not at this stage. He further stated that the disease
of the respondent can be cured or it can aggravate after a lapse
D
of time.
12. It is relevant to point out that the documents produced
from the side of the respondent-wife, particularly, medical report
issued by Dr. Harjeet Singh, Consultant Psychiatrist, RW-4
E
shows as:
"Impression: Bipolar Affective (Mood) Disorder, currently
in remission."
"Advice: marital therapy for the .couple. Follow up as and
F
when required."
The said Report has been marked as Annexure R10. A fair
typed copy of relevant extract of Ex. P3 shows that "Mood
according to patient is euthenics." The Annexure along with the
G
counter affidavit of the respondent-wife filed in this Court,
particularly, Certificate issued by the Doctor refers "suicide
threats made by her on some occasions".
13. The appellant-husband was examined as PW-4.
According to him, the marriage with respondent-wife was
H
962
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A solemnized on 02.10.2000 and it was an arranged marriage.
After marriage, both of them went to Vaishno Devi, however,
in the meanwhile he noticed some strange facial expressions
and behaviour of his wife-Dimple. He subsequently came to
know that she was suffering from some serious disease. She
B used to become annoyed and angry on petty issues, abuse and
fight with him, flaunt her father's status and influence, comb her
hair throughout the day, cry like children, apply brakes of a
moving vehicle, call strangers in the house and offer them tea.
Even once she called a washerman in the house and gave him
c Rs. 200/- unnecessarily and when he said 'thanks' she
immediately snatched the money from his hands and slapped
him for no reason and, thereafter, she abused him and pushed
him out of the house. According to him, such things had
become her everyday chores. She used to wake up very late
D in the morning. Whenever his mother and sister called her to
join them, she started abusing and insulting them. She used to
call his mother stupid and his sister as wretched. One day,
when his friend Sumit came to their house, she insulted him
when he was sitting in the drawing room on the ground floor
E and when the appellant-husband was coming down to join him,
she pushed him from stairs and started laughing, as a result,
he fell down and got fractured. She was in the habit of listening
to phone calls of Madan Lal, the landlord (PW-5) and used to
abuse his relatives over phone. One day, when the landlord
(PW-5) told them that he is fed up with the appellant and his
F family and asked to leave· the house immediately thereupon,
the respondent-Dimple slapped him on his face for which he
had to apologise him for her acts. Even, one day, she threw
the infant child towards him.
G
14. In order to show that his marriage was an arranged
one he explained that he knows the father of the respondentwife prior to the marriage as he was his Boss in Life Insurance
Corporation office, Amritsar Division. He worked under him for
a period of 6-8 months. He further explained that the behaviour
H of the respondent-wife came to his notice after 1 % months'
PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL
963
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
after their marriage and he immediately disclosed this fact to
A
.her father. The treatment was given to the respondent-wife for
the first time on 06.09.2001 for her abnormal behaviour.
15. Another important witness examined on the side of the
appellant-husband is Madan Lal (PW-5), the landlord, who
8
rented his house to them. In his evidence, PW-5 C:;posed that
he is resident of H.No. 62, Tilak Nagar, Amritsar and his wife
is also residing with him. He rented out a portion of the building
to the appellant-husband and respondent-wife which was on the
first floor. He and his wife were residing on the ground floor.
C
According to PW-5, the respondent-wife usually remained
sitting in the portion of his house during the day time where he
is.residing with his family unless and until the appellant-husband
return home. She used to sit with his daughter and daughterin-law and remained talking with them. She also quarrels with
his wife and daughter due to the use of telephone. He explained
D
that his daughter-in-law told him that the respondent-wife often
threatens to commit suicide. The High Court, without looking
into the evidence of Madan Lal (PW-5), erroneously concluded
that his evidence was of n.o help. On the other hand, PW-5 has
specifically narrated the behaviour of the respondent with his
E
wife, daughter-in-law and the agony he himself had undergone
and highlighted all those details in the Court.
16. Apart from the above oral evidence, the appellanthusband has also pressed into service a copy of an affidavit
of the respondent-wife i.e. Annexure-R3. In the said affidavit,
the respondent-wife has stated that she threatened to commit
suicide so many times to her in-laws and she even tried to
commit suicide by way of jumping from the roof of the house
F
on the intervening night of 19-20.09.2001 but could noi succeed
G
due to timely intervention of her husband. She also stated that
she realized that her attempt to commit suicide was at the
· instance of her parents and now she is repentant for her actions
for threatening to commit suicide and apologise for the same
with the assurance not to repeat such type of actions in future.
H
964
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
17. Though the trial Court accepted the claim of cruelty,
the High Court reversed the said conclusion and completely
rejected the claim of divorce even under unsound mind. In the
impugned judgment, though the High Court has adverted to the
evidence of four doctors, without proper appreciation, arrived
B at an erroneous conclusion that mere evidence of mental illness
is not sufficient to seek decree for divorce. In spite of abundant
materials, unfortunately, the High Court has erroneously
concluded that only wordings of Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act
were merely reproduced without adverting to the facts of the
c case. According to the High Court, necessary materials were
not pleaded. We are unable to accept the said conclusion.
Without proper discussion and adequate reasons, the High
Court rejected the evidence of the appellant-husband as PW4. A perusal of his evidence clearly show the agony and
0 treatment meted out immediately after the marriage due to
mental disorder/unsound mind of the respondent-wife.
18. From the materials placed on record, we are satisfied
that the appellant-husband has brought cogent materials on
record to show that the respondent-wife is suffering from mental
E disorder, i.e., Schizophrenia. From the side of the appellanthusband, various doctors and other witnesses were examined
to prove that the respondent-wife was suffering from mental
disorder. We have already extensively quoted the statements
of Dr. Paramjit Singh (PW-1), Dr. Ravinder Mohan Sharma
F (PW-2), Dr. Virendra Mohan (PW-3) and Dr. Gurpreet lnder
Singh Miglani (PW-7) - all the four doctors/Psychiatrists who
treated the respondent-wife, prescribed medicines and also
expressed the view that it is "incurable". Even the respondentwife and her father themselves admitted in their crossG examination that the respondent had taken treatment from the
said Doctors for mental illness. Thus, it is proved beyond doubt
that the respondent-wife is suffering from mental disorder/
Schizophrenia and it is not reasonably expected to live with her
and the appellant-husband has made out a case for a decree
H
PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL
· '.
965
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
of divorce and the decree should have been granted in favour
A
of the appellant-husband and against the respondent-wife.
19. The High Court, by impugned order, negatived the plea
of the appellant-husband under Section 13(1 )(iii) of the Act on
the ground that the appellant-husband has merely reproduced
8
the wordings of the Section without applying the same to the
facts of the case and that it was not pleaded that it was a case
of continuous or intermittent disorder. The aforesaid reasoning
of the High Court is completely erroneous qnd contrary to the
material on record which we have already demonstrated.
c
20. Coming to the pleadings before the High Court, the
appellant-husband had specifically pleaded that the
respondent-wife was suffering from Schizophrenia, which is a
kind of mental disorder and he had pointed out specific
incidents to show that the respondent-wife was not of sound
D
mind. The relevant portion of the petition for divorce filed by the
appellant is reproduced hereunder:
"4. That the petitioner shortly after his marriage found the
respondent to be acting in a very abnormal manner. She
E
would abruptly get very aggressive, hostile and suspicious
in nature, ought to hit any body available in her company
and her suspicion would go to such an extent that she
should not like to take food without some other member
of the family consuming the same.