Mohanchandra vs Shwetha

P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J—This is an unfortunate case in which a gullible young lady got married to a man suffering from mental disorder and elder to her by a decade. After suffering the ordeal for some time, the lady obtained relief by way of dissolution of marriage from the Family Court.

Appellant - husband has challenged the judgment and decree dated 2.1.2015 in M.C. No. 85/2014 on the file of Family Court, D.K. Mangaluru dissolving his marriage with the respondent.

Brief facts of the case are marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 13.11.2011 at Sri Rama Mandir, Kinnigoli, Mangaluru. Little while after the marriage, the family members of appellant started ill-treating her. Particularly, appellant''s father started making some advances towards her. His obnoxious behaviour shocked respondent. To compound her misery, respondent observed severe mood swings and abnormal behaviour of her husband and discovered that he was suffering from mental disorder for over a decade. She realised that appellant''s family had suppressed his mental condition and she felt cheated. As days passed, the behaviour of the appellant turned violent towards her and during February 2013 she was beaten black and blue compelling her to lodge a police complaint with Mangaluru North Police Station. Appellant and her family members apologized for their misdeeds before the police. The cumulative effect of sequence of events post marriage compelled the respondent to leave her matrimonial home.

Respondent initiated both Civil and Criminal proceedings against the appellant by instituting a Crl.Misc. No. 724/2013 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act and the instant petition for a decree of divorce.

Appellant entered appearance and resisted the instant petition by filing statement of objections denying petition averments. It was contended by the appellant that the respondent had left for her parents house stating that she was suffering from pain in her leg; that Respondent used to cry and some time lose her consciousness during her stay in the matrimonial home; that she had some medical problem and the marriage was never consummated. Appellant also alleged that respondent was suffering from mental disorder and the said fact was concealed at the time of marriage. With these averments, appellant sought for dismissal of instant petition. On consideration of the material on record, Family Court framed following two points:-

"1. Whether the petitioner proves that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment due to the willful conduct of respondent and thereby commuted the matrimonial offence of cruelty as such she is entitled get decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty?

Whether the petitioner proves that she is entitled to get permanent alimony under Sec. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act? If so what is its quantum?"

Answering the first point in the affirmative and second point partly in affirmative, learned Family Court allowed the petition dissolving the marriage and awarded a permanent alimony of Rs. 7 lakhs. Hence, this appeal.

We have heard Sri K. Giridhar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri S. Rajashekar, learned Counsel for the caveator/respondent.

Learned Counsel for the appellant made a feeble attempt to assail the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment. In view of findings recorded by the learned Family Court in paragraph No. 11 of the judgment, he had an onerous task to advance the cause of appellant.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent supporting the impugned order vehemently contended that respondent is a victim of deceit and her life is ruined by marrying a mental wreck. He further contended that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material papers.

We commenced the judgment by suffixing the adjective that this is an unfortunate case. Indeed it is one. We say so, because respondent''s narration of her suffering in the matrimonial home in her examination-in-chief is heart wrenching. Precisely, she has stated thus:-

"6. I say that I was very hurt to hear the respondent and his family members address to me with most abusive and vulgar words since I was not used to such bad language. I say that respondent used to join hands with his family members and harass me in order to pressurize me to bring more money from my parental house. I say that, the respondents father was a man of very desperate nature and started to make overtures at the overlooking the fact that I was like a daughter to him. I further say that the respondent''s father started misbehaving with me by making vulgar signs at me and used to brush against me intentionally. I say that initially I thought it was accidental, later I realized that the respondent father was doing it on purpose and was having an evil eye on me. I say that I was shocked by such behavior by a man older than my father and when the matter became intolerable I threatened him that I will complain about the same to the respondent. I say that the respondent father threatened that if I discloses this fact to anyone he will not hesitate to put poison in my food and see that I would die and make it look like suicide. I say that out of fear that the respondents father would carry out his threats I chosen to remain quiet but this encouraged the respondent father who became more overtly disgusting and attempted to outrage my modesty in the absence of other family members. I say that I was living in fear in the house of the respondent and my life became nightmare. I say that at the time I realized that things were going out of hand and my modesty was at stake if I did not stop the respondents father from carrying on his obnoxious behavior. I say that I brought this to the notice of the respondent. Instead of opposing this dirty behavior of his father the respondent, told me to remain quiet and not to disclose this matter to anyone else. I say that respondent even did not question his father about the same though he knew very well that what was stated by me was very much true."...............(sic)

I say that some times the respondent was used to behave abnormally That the respondent used to become extremely violent for no rhyme or reason and abuse and assault me. The respondent was totally controlled by his parents and listening to their false stories against me and used to ill treat me. I say that respondent used to sometimes behave like a mentally unstable person and used to stealthily consume tablets. I say that I was shocked to come to know that the respondent was suffering from some sort of mental disorder for which he was taking treatment and that due to this my chance of conceiving was very remote. I say that I realized that the respondent and his family members had cheated me and my family members by suppressing this fact and had spoilt my whole life. I further say that it was an shock and surprise to me that the respondent was consuming tablets for mental disorder and also act abnormally at that times. I say that respondent was used to sit and stare at space and used to talk to himself when he used to get such attacks become very violent and uncontrollable and in several time the respondent beaten me mercilessly. I say that I was shocked to come to know that the respondent was suffering from Physiological disorder and knowing all this very well and suppressing this fact the respondent and his family members had made me as a scapegoat and made me enter into matrimony. I say that in spite of this I lived with the respondent accepting it as my fate. But the harassment and ill-treatment meted out to me increased two fold. I say that I was treated like a slave in the house of the respondent."..............(sic)

(underlining is by us)

Surprisingly, though the respondent has been cross examined at length, no efforts appeared to have been made on behalf of the appellant to extract any statement contrary to her deposition in examination-in-chief. Thus, her above statements made on oath has remained un-impeached.

On the other hand, appellant in his cross-examination has admitted in unambiguous terms that he was suffering from psychic disorder for 12 to 13 years. He has stated thus in his cross - examination:-

"3. Since the past 12 to 13 years I am suffering from psychic dis-order. Since the past 13 years I am under medication and treatment. For the purpose of issue of legal notice I myself my father and my mother gave instructions to our lawyer. Because of taking continuous treatment now I am cured from psychic dis-order. At the time of marriage negotiations the facts that I was suffering from psychic dis-order since the past 13 years was not divulged to the family members of the petitioner.".........................(sic)

(underlining is by us)

We were appalled to note the despicable and monstrous mind and disposition of appellant and his family members which resulted in ruining the life of an young lady. In the course of cross-examination, respondent has mentioned that the marriage alliance was brought by one Susheela, who is a distant relative of the appellant. We are distressed to note the manner in which the appellant, his family members and the relative - Susheela have managed to pull respondent into a cesspool. The least we can say is that their conduct is abysmal.

In the light of the categorical admission by the appellant and the un-impeached evidence of the respondent, we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned judgment and decree does not suffer from any infirmity in law warranting interference. However, we are strangely surprised to take note of tenacity and temerity with which the appellant has sought to challenge the impugned judgment, in the face of adverse material on record referred staring at him causing enormous loss of valuable time and resources of the Family Court and this Court.

In the result, appeal fails and accordingly stands dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- payable by the appellant to the respondent, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

With the dismissal of main appeal, the I.A.2/2015 for stay of the impugned order does not survive for consideration and accordingly stands dismissed.