KRISHNA BHAT Vs. SRIMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) in this appeal, the husband challenges the correctness of the judgment of the court below in dismissing his application for divorce sought invoking Section 13(l)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The facts leading to the appeal in brief are as follows:

(2.) the marriage between the spouses took place on 14-3-1980. The husband alleges that he did not know the wife prior to the marriage, he being a resident in a far off place and since the alliance was mooted by a common relative. He saw the bride for the first time and for a brief period of few days prior to the marriage at her residence. The husband alleges that he consented to the marriage believing that the wife was a normal person. The marriage was thereafter held, at uppinangady i.e., at the groom's place, instead of as usual at brides place at the suggestion of the bride's parents. After the marriage they lived together in his house for about 2 or 3 days and during these days her behaviour was unusually calm. The husband believed that her conduct was so, because of the changed atmosphere; but he alleges that during this period she was showing disinclination to cohabit with him. It is alleged that during next few days they were visiting the houses of relatives and according to the husband even then also the wife was showing disinclination to consumate the marriage and even evinced aversion to the same. It is further alleged that at about the end of April 1980 the wife suddenly began to develop peculiar and aggressive manner and she began to talk without coherence of thought and quite unconnected with the situation. According to the husband on one or two occasions in April 1980 she attempted to run away from the house and she had to be brought back after using force. According to the husband the wife used to abuse the members of his family without rhyme or reason and she stated that she did not want to get married and that she married out of coercion and force and had no inclination to have cohabitation and in fact she was aversion to the same. According to the husband the wife is mentally unsound and also suffers from mental disorder. He further alleges that he was unaware of the mental condition of the wife and these facts were suppressed from him and his consent for the marriage was obtained by practising fraud. The husband sent for her brother ramachandra bhat intending to treat the wife hoping that the mental condition and attitude of the wife would change and accordingly on 19-5-1980 they took her to the hospital at manipal. There, a lady doctor examined her. According to the doctor, the wife was mentally unsound and she had such attack of insanity for a period not less than 5 years preceding the examination and that the same can only be kept under control by continuous administration of drugs and that she will not be completely cured. At this stage, it is alleged that the wife's brother offered to treat her and cure her illness and offered to take her to their house assuring the husband that after cure, she will be sent back. She was taken to their house. There was no response for some time thereafter and as the husband was anxious to know her condition he went to her house twice. He found her condition had not improved at all. The husband has reason to believe that during the first few weeks of her stay in his house, she was under the influence of drugs and she was behaving in a calm and quiet manner, that as soon as the stock of the drugs exhausted, she reverted to her old abnormal behaviour of incoherent though and violence. She is in an incurable state of mind suffering from fit of insanity and hence unable to fulfil her marital obligation. She has shown aversion to cohabit with the husband which amounts to impotency under law. Due to this and the mental condition it is not possible for the husband to live with the respondent-wife. Hence the husband has sought for divorce.

(3.) the respondent-wife denied all the allegations and offered to go and live with the appellant. She expressed her willingness to discharge her marital obligation as a dutiful wife. She denied the allegation that she has any aversion for cohabitation. She further offered to be examined by a doctor, to establish that she does not suffer from any illness as alleged by the appellant. She claimed that she is capable of consumating the marriage.