# Railgcry_vrt Clletti v. TflilnikacluJlla Mudali &. Ors •. J.L.R. 19

- **Citation:** [1974] 2 S.C.R. 97
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-10-19
- **Bench:** K. K. Mathew, M. H. Beg, A. K. Mukhe.Rjea
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/railgcry-vrt-clletti-v-tflilnikaclujlla-mudali-ors-j-l-r-19-6219
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Tlind11 Marriage Act (2~ of 1955), s. !3U)(iv)-Yirulent and i11r.urable
form of ltpro:r)', wlrnt is--Relevancy of motives of spouses of their parents.
c
D
E
F
The appellant was suffering from the Jeproma~ous form Qf leprosy, Md the
respondent, her husband, filed a petition under s.
13 (1) (iv)
of the
Hindu
Marriage Act, .J9SS, for the dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the
appellant had, for a ]lfriod of not less than 3 years immediatcly preceding the
presentation of the petition, been suffering from a virulent (lnd (ncurable form
of leprosy. The .Hish Court, in appeal, arantr.d the decree.
Dismissing the appeal to thi.! Court,
HELD : The form leprosy from which the appellant was suJfcrin~t was both
virulent and incurable and it was a ftt case for granting the Jecree. [lOSE-F) ·
( 1 ) The term virulent is not a medical term. The decisions of the Privy
Council and the different High Courts m India wh~re the word virulent' had
been used for interpreting the Hindu Law on the subject of
exclusion from
inheritance have used it to describe leprosy of the most serious aDd aggravated
type. The emphasis in the Hindu rcl1gious and legal texts was on the compc·
tencc of a man to perform his social and religious obligatiops. No word had
been used in those texts which coull\ be
referred to as the c:onespondiq
Sanskrit word for 'virulent'. Therefore, those decisions do not give any sure and
reliable guiuancc for interpreting the word 'virulent' in the iection. (IOOE·,
IOIE·Fl
Railgcry_vrt Clletti v.
TflilnikacluJlla Mudali &. Ors •. J.L.R. 19
Mnd. 74.
A1111nta v.
Ramabai. J.L.R. 1 Born. 554. Ramaf>ai.
v.
llamabai, J.l..R. ~8'
Bom. 363, (P.C.) Knyar~lla Pnthan
v.
Subbnraya Tl1avan, LL.R. 38 Mad.
250, Karali Char(l!J Pfll v, Asltutosh Nandi, I.L.R. SO Cal. 604, referred to.
(2) 'Virulent' according to the dictionary means 'malignant and infectious'.
Almost oil medical authorities rec'lgnise lepromatous leprOlly as malignant and
contagious.
[102B.C]
(3) (a) The disense can also be described as an incurable form of leprosy.
Sulpbone treatment which bas made undoubtedly a great advance on the previous methods of .treatment of leprosy does not guarantee complete cure. There
are abo other efficacious drugs but even so, experts do not yet consider that,
with all the advances in physiotherapy,. surgery or orthopaedic ~urgery, it is
possible either to cure the disease completely or to correct the ·deformities and
mutilations that are often produced by the disease. [105A-B, C-E).
(b) Further, sulphone drugs were discovered about 1941 and the Legislature
must be presumed to have known about their effect on leprosy when the Hindu
G
Marriage Act, 1955, was p!IS:Ied. If it be true that all types of leprosy are
curable by sulpbone drugs the legislature would not have provided for the grant
of divorce on the ground of ilacurr.,bit leprosy. [lOSB..CJ
( 4) It i~ true that the social approach to leprosy should b! that one should'
take a very humane and balanced outlook and accept leprosy as simply another
disorder that requires medical attention. But that does not provid" anv justification for compelling a husband to live with a wife who is suffering from an:
a~t~ravated form of jeprosv and who can communicate it to him and his children
H
almost any lltOment in their dailv life even though the legislature bv statute hu
rjven the husband a way of relief. The only consideration bein!l the welfare of.
the spouses and ol the children, if :my, of the marring", the court cannot take
into account while deciding the question the motives of the soou~es for applying
for divorce or cf their parents in arranging the marri<•ge. [106A·B. C-EJ
8-L447SCr'/74.
98
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974 ) 2 S.C.lt.
CIVIL APPELATt:: JURISDICTION : Civil A~l No, 2248 of 1970
Appeal by special leave from the judgement and Order dated
the 2nd July, 1969, of the Andhra Pr.adesh High Court at Hyderabad
in appeal against order No. 224 of 1966.
Y. S. Chitle, K. Rajendra Choudhury and

## Text

A
SW ARAJYA LAKSHMI
\1,
G. G. PADMA RAO
October 19, 1973
07
n
[K. K. MATHEW, M. H. BEG AND A. K. MUKHE.RJEA, JJ.J
Tlind11 Marriage Act (2~ of 1955), s. !3U)(iv)-Yirulent and i11r.urable
form of ltpro:r)', wlrnt is--Relevancy of motives of spouses of their parents.
c
D
E
F
The appellant was suffering from the Jeproma~ous form Qf leprosy, Md the
respondent, her husband, filed a petition under s.
13 (1) (iv)
of the
Hindu
Marriage Act, .J9SS, for the dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the
appellant had, for a ]lfriod of not less than 3 years immediatcly preceding the
presentation of the petition, been suffering from a virulent (lnd (ncurable form
of leprosy. The .Hish Court, in appeal, arantr.d the decree.
Dismissing the appeal to thi.! Court,
HELD : The form leprosy from which the appellant was suJfcrin~t was both
virulent and incurable and it was a ftt case for granting the Jecree. [lOSE-F) ·
( 1 ) The term virulent is not a medical term. The decisions of the Privy
Council and the different High Courts m India wh~re the word virulent' had
been used for interpreting the Hindu Law on the subject of
exclusion from
inheritance have used it to describe leprosy of the most serious aDd aggravated
type. The emphasis in the Hindu rcl1gious and legal texts was on the compc·
tencc of a man to perform his social and religious obligatiops. No word had
been used in those texts which coull\ be
referred to as the c:onespondiq
Sanskrit word for 'virulent'. Therefore, those decisions do not give any sure and
reliable guiuancc for interpreting the word 'virulent' in the iection. (IOOE·,
IOIE·Fl
Railgcry_vrt Clletti v.
TflilnikacluJlla Mudali &. Ors •. J.L.R. 19
Mnd. 74.
A1111nta v.
Ramabai. J.L.R. 1 Born. 554. Ramaf>ai.
v.
llamabai, J.l..R. ~8'
Bom. 363, (P.C.) Knyar~lla Pnthan
v.
Subbnraya Tl1avan, LL.R. 38 Mad.
250, Karali Char(l!J Pfll v, Asltutosh Nandi, I.L.R. SO Cal. 604, referred to.
(2) 'Virulent' according to the dictionary means 'malignant and infectious'.
Almost oil medical authorities rec'lgnise lepromatous leprOlly as malignant and
contagious.
[102B.C]
(3) (a) The disense can also be described as an incurable form of leprosy.
Sulpbone treatment which bas made undoubtedly a great advance on the previous methods of .treatment of leprosy does not guarantee complete cure. There
are abo other efficacious drugs but even so, experts do not yet consider that,
with all the advances in physiotherapy,. surgery or orthopaedic ~urgery, it is
possible either to cure the disease completely or to correct the ·deformities and
mutilations that are often produced by the disease. [105A-B, C-E).
(b) Further, sulphone drugs were discovered about 1941 and the Legislature
must be presumed to have known about their effect on leprosy when the Hindu
G
Marriage Act, 1955, was p!IS:Ied. If it be true that all types of leprosy are
curable by sulpbone drugs the legislature would not have provided for the grant
of divorce on the ground of ilacurr.,bit leprosy. [lOSB..CJ
( 4) It i~ true that the social approach to leprosy should b! that one should'
take a very humane and balanced outlook and accept leprosy as simply another
disorder that requires medical attention. But that does not provid" anv justification for compelling a husband to live with a wife who is suffering from an:
a~t~ravated form of jeprosv and who can communicate it to him and his children
H
almost any lltOment in their dailv life even though the legislature bv statute hu
rjven the husband a way of relief. The only consideration bein!l the welfare of.
the spouses and ol the children, if :my, of the marring", the court cannot take
into account while deciding the question the motives of the soou~es for applying
for divorce or cf their parents in arranging the marri<•ge. [106A·B. C-EJ
8-L447SCr'/74.
98
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974 ) 2 S.C.lt.
CIVIL APPELATt:: JURISDICTION : Civil A~l No, 2248 of 1970
Appeal by special leave from the judgement and Order dated
the 2nd July, 1969, of the Andhra Pr.adesh High Court at Hyderabad
in appeal against order No. 224 of 1966.
Y. S. Chitle, K. Rajendra Choudhury and Vtena Devi, for the
appellant.
R. Vas.udev Pillai and P. Kesava Pillai, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
"
B
MUICHERJEA, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed agairist
the judgment and order da£ect July 22, 1 ':169 of the High Court of
Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in conne~tion with a petic
tion filed by respondent Dr. G. G. P~ma Rao a~nst the .appellant
Swarajya La.kshmi under Sec. 13( 1 )(1v) of the Hmdu Marnage Act,
1955 for the dissolution of the marriage between them by a decree
of divorce on the ground that the appellant had for a period of not
less than three years immediately preceding the presentation of the
petition been suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy.
The appellant and the respondent were married on June 17, 1963.
D
The appellant was then 20 and the respondent, her husband, was
28 years of age.
The appellant, we are told, was taken away by her
parents to New Delhi on,ly two days after the marriage. She returned to Hyderabad to live with her husband only towards the end
of August 1963. Almost immediately thereafter jn tbe month of Sep.
tember her husband discovered that she was suffering both
from
Leprosy and Tuberculosis. He bein~ a doctor started treating Lhc
E
wife immediately. Not content with his own treatment he consulted
also two experts namely Dr. C. V. Ethiraju:u and Dr. Shanti Narayan
Mathur.
At one point of time the responder\t-scriously contemplated
admitting the appellant to a leper home, but the appellant was taken
away by her father to New Delhi in May 1964 as she was then expecting a child.
On June 4, 1965 the respondent filed a
petition
under the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the said
F
Act) for dissolution of his marriage with the appeJJant. At the time
of presenting this petition he made an application under Sec. 14(1)
of the said Act before the City Civil Court at Hyderab 1d for permission to present the petition reforc three vears had elapsed from the
date of the marriage on the ground that the case was one of exceptional hardship to the respondent.
The permission was -granted and
the petition was thereafter heard on evidence. On February 22, 1966
G
the Second A~?itional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad who
he.ard the t>et~hon passed an order by which he held (a) that SwJ·
.: . ra1ya .Lakshmt, the appellant, had been suffering from an incurable
and vtr:ulent form ?f leprosy for a period not less than three years
lmmedtfl!ely precedmg the presentation of the netition: but (b) that
~e petitiOn was premature on the ground that the parties to the petitiOn had not been hu~~and and ~ife for a p;rio~ of three years. The
u
learned Second Additional
Chtef Judge disrrussed the ~tition on
these findin~. 'fhe respondent thereupon went on appeal 'to the High
Court of Andhra Prade~h. A Division Bench heard that appeal.
A
8
c
G
H
S. LAKSHMI v. G. G. RAO (Mukherjea, J.)
99
By an order dated July 22, 1969 the Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the court below and granted a decree for
divorce in favC1Ur of the respondent under Sec. 13(l),(iv) of the said
Act.
From this judgment, appellant Swarajya Lakshmi has now come
by special leave on appeal to this Court. The main controversy between the parties before us turned round the question: Was the leprosy of Swarajya Lakshmi of an incurable and virulent form?
Both
parties seem to be agreed that Swarajya Lakshmi was suffering from
the lepromatous form of leprosy. The respondent contends that this
was an incurable and virulent form of leprosy while it was contended
on hehalf of th~ appellant that the leprosy she was suffering from
was curable and in fact she was on the way to recovery when the
petition for disolution of marriage was presented. Both the conte~t·
ing parties examined doctors in support of their respective conteu-.
tions. The doctors agreed that "virulent" is not really a medical term.
Apart from this the medical evidence on record is not very helpful
in the sense that they cancel each other.
But leprosy is such a wellknown disease and there are such well-known medical experts on
this subject who have recorded their views in print in a fairly convinc·
ing manner, that it is not impossible to come to a conclusion regarding
the question w·hether the appellant's leprosy was of the incurable and
virulent type.
Before considering the
medical authorities on the subject we
-should consider the scope and intent of the provisions of the Hindu
Marriage Act under which leprosy m1y sometimes be a good ground
of divorce. Sec. 13 (1) of the said Act is in the following terms :-
"13. (1) Any marriage solcmnised, whether before or
after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissq1ved by a
·decree of divorce on the ground that the other party-
(i) ......... .
(li)
(iii)
(iv)
......... ' ..
has, for a period of not less than three years immediately preceding the presentation of the
petition,.,
.,
been suffering from a virulent and incurable form of
leprosy; or
"
I
..
<
O
6
O
0
O
0
0
I
..
•
•
0
0.
•
0
0
0
0
•
0
• '.1
0
I
I
In construing these provisions one has to remember that divorce
is not generally favoured or encouraged by courts and is permitt*
only for very serious and grave reasons.
This will become obvious
if we compare the provisions set out above with the corresoon<i:ng ·
provisions for judicial separation. Sec. 10 of the Hindu Marria~
Act permits judicial separation on ~ound of leprosy but the condi~
tions are far lm stringent. Sec. 1 0( 1) of the said
Act runs
as
follows:-
"10. (I) Either party to a marriage, whether solcmniz-
·ed before or after the
commencement of thi<>
Act, may
100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974 J 2 S.C.R.
'
present a petition to the district court praying for a d~cre~
ior judicial separatio:t on the ground that the other party-
(a) ............. .
(b) ............. .
(c) has, for a period of not less t:Jan one yl!ar imml!-
diately preceding the prcs::ntatioa of the petition,
be:!n suff~ring from a virulent form of lcp:osy; or
"
It is s;gnificant that judicial separation is allowed if other party
·to a marriage has b~cn suffering from a virulent form of leprosy for
a period of at least one year before the pesentation of the petition.
In order, however, to be entitled to a decree of divorce a party has
to prove that his spouse ha~ been suffering from a form of leprosy
which is not only virul~nt but also incurable and further that the
spouse concerned hac; been suffering from this ailment for a period
of at least three years before the presentation of the petition. Clearly,
enough, the conditions under which divorce is to be allowed are far
more strinc,~nt than the conditi.ons under which judicial separation
may be granted.
Both parties agree that "virulent" iu this context is not a medical
term.
Indeed, the medical evidence on record also makes the same
assertion. What, then, is the me:lrlillg of the word 'virulent'?
A suggestion was made to us that the word 'virulent' is a relic
of those decisions in Hindu law which speak of leprosy as a disqualification entailing forfeiture of pro!>crty rights of the person afflicted
by that disease when "it appears in a virulent and aggravated form".
We were asked to give the same meaning to this word in the present
context as h,ld b~cn given in these Hindu Law decisions. In Ran~.
goyya Chetti v. Tlwnikaclralla Mud1r!i & Ors. ( 1) the learned Judgci
of the Madras High Court scents to have trcatcJ the word 'virulent'
as descriptive of the disease when it spre.:Ids quickly and extensively
ov.::r the patient's body.
Dealing with leprosy in the same context
as furnishing a ground for c:-~:clusion from inheritance the Bombay
High Court in Ananta v. RamlJb:;i(") says that ''the leprosy to disqualify must be of the sanious or ulcerous kind, which WJS, we th:nk
the virulent or aggravated type of leprosy .... ". This meaning is
given by the learned Judge on the basis of the ancient Hindu autho~
ritics as interpreted by the Bombay anu Madras High Ccurts in cer~
tain cases. ln the case of Ramabai v. Harnabai the Privy Co-.Jncil
while d.!aJing with the issue· as to wh::-thcr a Hindu governed by the
Mitakshara W;.t,S cxclud.ed by reason of leprosy fro:n the position of
a joint owner of property of his joint family on the ground of leprosy
ltcld that if the disca~e is of a type which is not very appo.rcnt except
to minut.! iaspcctioa k would not exclude the person concerned from
performing his social and religious duties in co:nbinatio:t with others
and would not therefore be a disqualification.
Th;o Privy Council
(I) l.l.R. 19 ~1ad. 7-t
(2) LL.R. 1 R<'n. 554.
(3) ·J.L.R. 48 non.
~fJ.
A
c
E
r
G
H
'\
S. LAKSllMI V. G.G. RAO (Mukl!erjea, ].)
101
A
cites with approval the following observation of Benson and Sundara
Ayyal' JJ. in Kayarchana Pathan v. Subbaraya 1'hevan :(1) "Deformity and unfitness for social intercourse arising from the virulent and
disgusting nature of the disease would appear to b~ what has been
accepted in both the texts and -the decisions as. the most satisfactory
test". From this it is not di1licult to infer that according to the
learned Judges any leprosy that led to deformity and unfitness for
.;l
social inteicourse could be considered virulent.
In Karali
Clz~rall
Pal v. Ashu:osh Nandi(Z) the Calcutta Hig;1 Cou~t in considering the
question as to when leprosy under the Hindu law would be a ground
of exdu~ion from inheritance held that it must be of th0 sanious or
ulcerous and not of tl~e anaesthetic type.
It was contended on behalf of the appdlant that we should follow.
·C
these decisions in interpreting the word 'viru~ent' in connection with
leprosy.
We
cannot, however, agree to accept th1s
sugg~stion.
'Virulence' as a ground for exclusion from inheritance is treated from
an entirely different angle in the Hindu religious and legal texts. The
general emphasis in those contexts was of the competence of a mau
to perform his social and religious obligations and no word has been
used in those texts which could be referred to as the corresponding
0
Sanskrit word ·for 'virulent'.
The decisions of the different High
·Courts and the Privy Council where the word 'virulent' has been used
for interpreting the Hindu law on the subject have used it to describe
the leprosy of the most serious and aggravated type. This does not
therefore give any sure .and reliable guide in interpreting the word
'virulent'. Since the word is not used by medical experts in describ-
.. ing any particular type of leprosy we have to find the meaning of the
i~
word. from the dictionaries ..
F
n
The meaning of the word 'virulent' appears in different dictionaries in the foiJowing manner:-
Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary:
Virulent :
highl.Y poisonous or malignant: venomous: acrimoruous.
Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary:
Virulent:
1. a: marked by a rapld, severe, and malignant
course.
b: able to overcome bodily defensive mecha-·
nisms;
2. extremely poisonous or. venomous: noxious~
3. ·full of malice : malignant;
4. objcctlonab!y harsh or strong,
T/ic Shorter Oxford English Dictionary·:
Viru1ent : 1. a : Of woun1s or ulcers.: cra~actcrised by.the presence o£ corrupt. ~r pois<l!\~us maq.r,:
..
b: Oi diseases, e~c.: Extremely malfsnam: or vi~
lent.
(2) T.L.R.
~0 C!. (f.4.
...
..
102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1974) 2 S.C.R.
2. Of serpents, material substances, plants, etc.: Pos~
A'
sessing venomous or strongly potsonous qualities;
extremely noxious.
3. Violently bitter, spiteful or malignant; full of acrimony or enmity'
'Virulent' therefore according to the dictionary meaning stands for
malignant and infectious.
.
n.
We shaH now proceed to consider whether lepromatous leprosy
which is the type from which the appellant admittedly suffers is
'virulent',
That lepromatous leprosy is malignant and
contagious
seems to 'be recognised by almost aU medical authorities. We append .
below some of the observations of the medical authorities on this
aspect of the lepromatous type of leprosy.
,.
At pa£e 232:
I. PRACTICE OF DERMATOLOGY
by
Dr. P. N. Behl
(2nd Edition)
Leprosy is apchronic, infectious disease caused
rium leprae.
At pages 232-233 :
D
Prolonged and close contact is ideal for its transmission. Transmission by short and intimate contacts has also been reported..
K
· Exposures to lepromatous cases results in 4 to 11 times more
effective transmission as compared with exposures to nonlepromatous ·cases.
At page 236:
LEPROMATOUS LEPROSY (L). In this type, the patient bas
low resistance and Mycobacterium lcprae multiply in atmnomical numbers.
At page 244:
The lepromatous form is malignant and contagious; there is no•
tendency to self-arrest or regression.
11
II. LEPROSY IN THEORY AND PRACTICE
(~.
At page 222:
by
R. C. Cochrane and T. Frank Davey
(2nd Edition)
... , AU clinical evidence goes to show that it is only the ~n
·
)11
cases of leprosy with positive skin and/ or nasal mucosal bios1es,
that are infective, and particularl_y the lep~omat?us fo~ which
contains the largest numbers of mxcro-orgamsms ,m the skm.
/
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
S. LAKSIJMi V. G. G. RAO (Mto!{herjea, J.)
1 03
At page 76:
Based on the numbe.r of IJlultiplc-case families, one must conclude that leprosy is as contagious or more contagious than is
poliomyelities.
. . . . .it would be advisable to state simply that leprosy
is contagious and omit any
reference to the degree of
communicability until more factual information is available.
III. MANSON'S TROPICAL DISEASES
by
At page 490:
Sir Philip H. Manson-Bahr
(Sixteenth Ed.)
LEPRO~TOUS LEPROSY.-This is the type r.een
in persons with a negligible resistance, and leprosy bacilli
are widely disce'llinated throughout the skin, nerves and
reticulo-endothelial system.
At paf(e 505:
PROGNOSIS.-Leprosy may sometimes be a slight
passing ailment, or may become the most repulsive loath~
some disease known to man.
The two important factors
are concentration and distribution of bacilli in the body
and resistance. Prognosis is more favourable in the tuberculoid than in the lepromatous type. and prognosis in 1he
indeterminate and dimorphous groups
is
intermediate
between these two.
THE DANGER OF CONTACT.-The factors
which
predispose to the danger of contact are closeness
and
duration, the .infectivity of the case, combined with the age
and general health of the person exposed to contagion.
At pa,lle 29:
IV. NOTES ON LEPROSY
by
Dharmendra
(Second Edition)
LEPROMATOUS LEPROSY: This is the severe malign
form of th~ · di~"Me seen .in persons with little or
no
resistance to infection.
We shall now deal with the next and also the more important
question as to whether leprom~t"u~ lenr~y is inc·tr ble. The ,.,edic1l
witnesses in this case have given their views on this subject. We haw
already stated· why we prefer the views of the more
well-known
experts of leprosy as we find them in authoritative books on leproq.
104
At pnge 506 :
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974] 2 S.C.R.
1. MANSON'S TROPICAL DISEASES
by
Sir Philip H. M:1n~on-Bahr
(Sixteenth Edition)
In the lepromatous type one should speak of arrest
rather than cure, and it may take 3-15 years to rid the skin
of bacilli; sulphoncs should then be continued at half the
maximal dosage for life.
2. PRICE'S TEXT-BOOK 0;-.' THE PRACriCE OF MEDIClNE
by
Donald Hunter
(Ninth Edition)
At page 93:
\
Sulphone treatment must be continued for months, if
possible for some years. Some authorities believe it should
go on at intervals for life.
It is not yet possible to say
whether cure results from sulphone therapy.
Patients should be free from Myco. leproe for at least
two years before discharge; even then it is not possible to
say whether the condition is really cured or merely arrested,
for leprosy is notoriously a disease of remissions.
At page 364:
3. DISEASE OF Tiffi SKIN
by
Richard L. Sutton
(Eleventh Edition)
PROGNOSIS. It could appear that no case of leprosy
recov ~rs spontaneously or as a result of treatment.
4. LEPROSY IN THEORY AND PRACTICE
by
At page 355:
R. K. Cochrane ?11~ T. FraPk Dw~y
(2nd Edition)
A
B
c
D
E
F
Although the prognosis of patients on sulpbonc therapy
is undoubtedly good, a permanent cure cannot be certain
(;
in any particular
case and it may be necessary,
as a
precaution, for the patient to take the drug for the rest of
his Jife. The failure~ th'lt do occl!r with sulphone ~eat•nent
are usually due to relapses after cessation of trtatment or
to exacerbations during treatment.
Considerable emphasis was laid at the time of arguments by ·the
H
appellant's counsel on the great advances made by sulphone treatment. It was contended thc,t su1phone treatment hos been so revolutional)· that leprosy should not any longer be considered to be an
A
1>.
S, LAKSHMI v. G. G. RAO (Mukherjea, /.)
105
incurable disease. Our study of the various authorities on the subject
does not support this view. lt is true that su1pttG11e is u uvuu e ... ly
·a great advance on the previous methods of treatment of leprosy but
even sulphone does not guarantee complete cure.
All authorities
agree that the sequelae remain even after the most prolonged treatment
wtth sulpnone drugs.
Bes1des, it is to be rememoered taat SuLphJne
drugs were discovered about 1941 and thev were very wel-kn "lwn
all over the world at the time when the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
was passed.
The. legislators must be presumed to have known· the
effect of sulphones on leprosy. If it be true that sui phone drugs
have made leprosy of all types curable there would be no point in
the legislature making a provision in the Hindu· Marriage Act which
will entitle a spouse to a decree ·of divorce if the other party to the
marriage would be found sufferin2 fro~ in~urable leprosy.
In this vi.e~ of the matter in our opinion the disease from which
the app~llant suffers can be described as an incurable form o. leprosy.
It is likely that with the future .advances -in the treatment of leprosy
one day even this form, o( leprcsy wJt be .amenable to cure. We mly,
in this connec;tica mention that even -after the sulphone theraj)y
a
drug known as CIBA-1906 was found out which in preliminary
stages appears to be equal in efficacy· to the sulphones but far less
toxic. Ever). so c.xperts do not. yet cons'der .that with all the adv~nces
in. p(ly~lotherapV., ·surgery ,or. or~bqpaedic sur~ery it is poss~~le e_itber
.to cure the disease completely or .. to correct the defornuhes
and
,mutilations that .are often _pr~e4 by the disease •. All that the text
boob . se¢ni ·.to suggest is .this . that. ';eradication· of the disease can •
. a® .e.ventJld{ly Mil, ·,occur thr~ugh ~tfective treatment of the individual
patkn~· .an~ ,segrega:ion to prevent. dissemip.ation of. the disease."
In view. ·of our findings that .the form of leprosy from which the
appellant suffers was both virulent and .incurable, we have come to
th~ . sad .. but driavoidable conclusion· that this is a fit case in . wb~
-~~e ·~esp()ndent :should be granted a decree of divorce under the said
d
.
.
. . . Col')si4fraQle arguments wer.e m;tde _from . the. bar at the time
~9~. th~ , ~earing of the appeal to impress on our mind
the . great
mJUStJce done · to the respondent by . the. appellant's. father who, we
were told, had deliberately married · the appellant to the respondent
at a point of time when ~e knew she was suffering fr"m a bad type ·
of leprosy, by suppressing that fact from the respondent.
While we
c
have ourselves considerable susoic;ons in cw ..,in-:!
t11at f1h is
perh1p~ tr·•e·, we h<:ve t<>k~n <Tf'!"t c'lre nf)t to allow th;s fact to h;tve
any weight in the matter of decidinsz this appeal. In the -system of
marria"e .prevai1ing in the Hindu Societv. so 1onl! as marriatJeS cortinu~
to be arranged bv the parents. it will be iniquitous to allow the sins
of the oarents who arrange the marriage to visit on their children
who marry. Marria!le. according to Hindu Law. is a sacrament and
II
a ho1v u11ion for the performance of reJiqious duties. There can be
no ouestion of either endangering or runturinq that relation on arco••nt
of the conduct of the oarents. That is why marriaqe even thou~
brought about during the minority of either party thereto does not ·
!06
SU~REME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974] 2 s.c.a.
.
.
lid
'Divorce and dissolution of marriage are
A
make the m_arnagc m~aen to H.ndu Law bcfJre the st~tute step<'ed in
conC<!p~ wbtch wc~c: a
1 Jaw
From the moment a marriage bas been ·
to modify the tra
1
d~tonal f th~ husband aod wife has to be considered
completed the re a .
0~ ~f view of the welfare of the husband and
only from the pom
add of the children, if any, of the marriage.
wife and! also! we mu_stw w'e have refused to be prejudiced by the
Fro~d thltl pol~: ~h::e eiiher the appellant or the appellant's father
B ..
consl era
0~een motivated by.
The story that the respondent who
may have
doctor of indilfcrcnt means was aupcd and oeguued IIIlO
was a >:oung 'tth the appellant by considerations of the position
a marnagc w
· 1
•
h'
·'
authoril
and affluence of tn~ fathcr-m- ~w L~ one w 1cn, even 1! 11
be
\as nothing to do w1th the qucsuon _whe~cr d1vorcc sh~uld
be t~~~~ under the Hindu Marriage Act.
L1kew1sc, the sug!esUJns
male on behalf of the appellant that the respondent had been attemptC
ing to extort money fr~m her father, also have no beanng on the
question we have to dec1de here.
we· should like to make another observation.
Sociologists insist
and they do so very -correctly that we, sho~ld not allow our ~ds
to be swayed by feelings of emouonal ·,oathtns and
rcvuls.on . wtth
which !~prosy patients have been treated throughout hu;;;::n hJStory D
in aU countries throul!bout the world and that we should 'akc up a
very humane and balanced outlook and accept leprosy "as simply
another disorder that requires medical attention". We have no doubt
that this is absolutely correct about what should
be the sod.ll · -----
approach to leprosy but to our mind this should not provide any
justification for compelling a husband to live with a wife who is
suller~g fr?m an aggravated form of leprosy and who can ~ve him [
and his chtldren leprosy almost any moment in their daily life, even
th~ugh the legislature by a &tatutc has given the husband a way oC
rel1ef. We ~ave DO _doubt i!' our minds that the Jaw-makers do. not
tr~at the subJCct of divorce lightly and mnst have taken into constder·
at!on the consequences of one spouse being compelled to Jive intimately
With another ~pouse who suiTers from leprosy wn.:n they pNvidcd tor
a w~y out for the former.
f
·
h Ild thh light of these considerations we dismiss the appeal . and
uf
0
I fe Judgment of tl1e High Court. In the facts and circwn·
5 aocM 0 tbc case we make no order as to casts.
V.P.S.
Appeal clismissed.