Smt. Shanti vs Amar Nath

C.R. Thakur, J.—Smt. Shanti Devi feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge dissolving her marriage with Shri Amar Nath Petitioner (who may hereinafter be called the Respondent) has filed this appeal.

The Respondent Shri Amar Nath was married to the Appellant on April 23, 1960, at Bhambota in Tehsil Dussuya, District Hoshiarpur. Two children--one son and a daughter were born to the Appellant from the loins of the Respondent. According to the allegations made in the petition the Appellant had been incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of over three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition which was filed on 1-5-1970. The Appellant became unwell in the year 1965 and became of unsound mind. The Respondent tried his level best to give all sorts of treatment and medical aid to the Appellant but in spite of that there was no improvement in the Appellant. She was even taken to Amritsar and treated in the Mental Hospital in March 1967 but there was no improvement and she is suffering from an incurable disease of unsoundness of mind for the last five years. It was in the face of these facts that the Respondent prayed for a decree for divorce as envisaged u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Appellant denied the allegation that she was insane and was suffering from an incurable disease. However, she admitted that she had been suffering from some disease which some times causes derangement of brain and it was due to the fact that if she had irregular menses then she got a fit of insanity and if the menses were regular then she was perfectly alright. She also admitted that she was admitted in the Mental Hospital, Amritsar, where she remained under treatment for a pretty long time. Further, she stated that even at the time when she filed the reply to the petition she was getting mental fits. However, her explanation was that those fits were as a result of irregularity of menstruation. She averred that the disease was not incurable and that the disease could be cured by spending a good deal of money and that the Respondent had refused to pay towards the expenses to be incurred on her treatment. On these averments she opposed the application for dissolution of marriage with the Respondent.

The Respondent in his replication reiterated the facts that the Appellant was of unsound mind from 1965 and he had tried to give all medical help to her but the unsoundness of mind is of incurable nature. He had spent heavy amount on her treatment.

The learned District Judge granted time for reconciliation but the Appellant did not turn up and therefore, the Court framed the following issues:

Whether the Respondent has been incurably of unsound mind for a period of over three years before the filing of the present petition, as alleged, if so, what is its effect? OPP

Relief.

The Respondent Shri Amar Nath examined himself and also Dr. H.L. Sharma, Specialist of the Mental Hospital, Amritsar (Punjab) and the Appellant examined one Dr. A.K. Dhillon, Medical Officer, Mental Hospital, Amritsar (Punjab).

The learned District Judge on the basis of the statements of Dr. H.L. Sharma as also that of Dr. A.K. Dhillon came to the conclusion that the Appellant was suffering from a chronic disease of Schizophrenia and which was five years'' old. Shri Sharma opined that the Appellant was not likely to be cured. According to him only 10 per cent of such like patients get fully cured, if complete treatment is given, whereas Dr. Dhillon opined that she was likely to be cured in three years or more from then if proper medical treatment was given. The District Judge, allowed the application of the husband i.e. the present Respondent and granted a decree for divorce by dissolution of marriage.

Section 13(1) provides for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the grounds given therein and the ground No. (iii) reads as under:

(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of not less than three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.

The plea taken up by the husband is that she has been incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of not less than three years. The reply of the wife is that she is not suffering from any incurable unsoundness of mind but she gets mental derangement when she gets irregular menses. She has also admitted the fact that she had been admitted in the Mental Hospital at Amritsar for her treatment for a pretty long time but according to her the disease is not incurable and so is the opinion given by her witness Dr. A.K. Dhillon. But both the expert witnesses, that is, Dr. Sharma produced by the husband and Dr. Dhillon produced by the wife are one on the point that the disease from which she is suffering is known as Schizophrenia. According to the evidence of Dr. Sharma, the disease is incurable and that it is a chronic disease. The wife had been under his treatment in the Mental Hospital at Amritsar since 3-3-1967 and according to him only 10 per cent of the cases get cured after treatment. The chances of recovery depend on the duration of the period of disease and if the disease is for two years or more then in the medical terminology the disease is termed as chronic and the witness had examined about one lac of such patients but he could not say how many were cured and that the percentage of recovery, as stated by him, was based on his experience which was, as is apparent from his statement, of about 13 years on the date when he gave his statement in the Court. Dr. Dhillon stated that the Appellant remained under his treatment also and he was quite categorical in saying that she was likely to be cured in about three years time if she continuously remains in the hospital. It was further averred that it may even take more time, but she was not likely to be cured in less than three years time.

From the perusal of the section itself it would be apparent that in order to obtain divorce on the ground of unsoundness of mind the person alleging insanity and seeking divorce has to establish that the other party had been incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of not less than three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The word ''continuously'' further implies that interval for short periods does not break the continuity as is also held in Frank v. Frank (1951) 2 All E.R. 503, C.A. So the question that really crops up for determination is whether this disease which has been diagnosed by both the Doctors appearing on behalf of the parties as Schizophrenia is really a disease which is incurable. In so far as the learned Counsel for the Appellant is concerned he has argued that from the opinion of the Doctors although they had diagnosed the disease as Schizophrenia it could not be said that it was of an incurable nature. The findings, according to him, recorded by the learned District Judge are not based on correct appraisal of the evidence and that the statements of the two doctors do not show that the disease is incurable but, as already stated, this submission of his does not appear to be correct. SCHIZOPHRENIA, as has been described in Chapter IX at page 210, under the heading Course and prognoses of the book Psychological medicine by Desmond Curran and Maurice Partridge, 4th Edition, Second Reprint, "is a very grave illness. The course may be crudely compared to that of a Switch back down hill. The gradient of this switchback is, however, extremely difficult to predict and the course downhill may stop, or spontaneous remission occur. Thus about one-third of the cases recover or show considerable improvement after the first attack, whilst the other two-thirds fail to do so, and if followed up ten years later are in mental hospitals or have died. The chances of a spontaneous remission are greatest in the first two years of the disease and are negligible after five years. It has been worked out that if a patient has remitted for three years, he is probably safe for another seven. Recovery from a third attack is improbable".

On the basis of the description given, about the Course and Prognosis it is quite apparent that the disease is of a grave nature and that there are remissions and about one-third of the cases recover or show considerable improvement after the first attack and that the chances of a spontaneous remission are greatest in the first two years of the disease and are negligible after five years. In the instant case before us it is not disputed that the Appellant got the first attack of Schizophrenia in 1967 and now it is 1976 and she is still undergoing treatment in the hospital although the learned Counsel for the Appellant very strenuously urged that she had fully recovered and had been discharged from the hospital but despite two opportunities having been granted by this Court as also the opportunities granted by the trial Court the learned Counsel has not been able to procure the attendance of the Appellant in the Court so as to justify his bona fides in this regard. Therefore, what follows is that she is still confined to the hospital and that she has not fully recovered and it is also a common case that she was suffering from this disease three years preceding the institution of the divorce petition by the husband. In these circumstances there can be no two opinions that the Appellant is suffering from Schizophrenia which has not show any trace that the disease has been cured. Rather on the contrary it is evident that despite her treatment for such a long time she has not been cured which, therefore, leads me to infer that the disease from which the Appellant is suffering is really of an ''incurable nature.

Chapter 6 of the book Clinical Psychiatry, second edition, 1964 by Ian Skottowe, also deals with Schizophrenic disorders. The reading of this chapter shows that the emotional state of the patient is very variable in the early stages of the illness. "Distress, ''distressed perplexity'', simple anxiety, tension and mixed depressed and anxious states may all be seen. But they seldom last for long and are not intelligible as a reaction to external circumstances, nor are they enduring and consistently congruous with the content of thought. Apart from transitory emotional disturbances of this kind, most schizophrenic patients look equable in mood, though a few are sullen or resentful if they harbour paranoid ideas. On questioning, the patient usually describes his spirits as ''all right'', and will admit, in a rather inconsequential way, that he is ''quite happy''. As soon as he is reminded of some incongruity between his statement of his feelings and his statement of his beliefs, as seen in, for instance, a patient who says that he is quite happy though he may just have complained of being persecuted by wireless, he will generally smile, look vague and say, ''don''t know''." At page 168 of Chapter 6 of this book it is written: "a considerable proportion of patients who do well at first subsequently relapse. Very few get well and stay well for the rest of their lives, without any mark of the illness upon them at all. The present position, as judged by the Oxford series, may be stated by saying that the short term prognosis is that 50 per cent of cases of Schizophrenia admitted to hospital and having all suitable forms of treatment available for them may be expected to be discharged within five months, either apparently recovered, or in a very good social remission. A further 25 per cent will be discharged within nine months of admission; while the remaining 25 per cent will be either very much as they were before treatment began or will show varying degrees of improvement, which may or may not enable them to leave hospital according to their circumstances. But of those who leave hospital, whether in a good remission or in no more than a moderate state of improvement, probably one-half will relapse sooner or later, and will need re-admission. The occurrence of relapse is not necessarily an indication of inherent tendency, but may be brought about by unforeseeable chance occurrences in the patient''s subsequent life. There is a tendency for the length of stay in hospital to increase progressively with each subsequent admission."

Therefore, from all these authoritative books it is evident that the possibility of cure is therein the first six months or nine months and if there is remission then the possibility gets still weaker and in the instant case it is an admitted fact, as already stated, that three years prior to the institution of the suit the Appellant was suffering from this disease known as Schizophrenia and which both the doctors have stated to be the disease from which the Appellant was found suffering and was having hospitalization. She is still undergoing treatment although this petition was filed somewhere in the year 1970 and even now in 1976 she is not proved to be out of the hospital and cured. This conclusively goes to show that this is a disease which is incurable and that being so the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the learned District Judge had not taken correct appraisal of the evidence does not appear to be correct. The evidence read in the context of these authorities cited above would fully support the case of the Respondent that the Appellant is suffering from an incurable disease and as such he is entitled to a decree for divorce and in my opinion the learned District Judge was perfectly justified in passing a decree on the basis of the expert evidence. The result, therefore, is that this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.