GNANAMBAL Vs. O.R. SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife who has been unsuccessful O.P. No. 60 of 1965 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras is the appellant herein. The said O.P. had been filed by the respondent herein for dissolution of his marriage with the appellant under S.13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that the appellant has been incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of three years prior to the filing of the said petition. It was his case that they got married on 3rd February, 1949, that ever since the marriage, his wife had soma sort of mental disorder which after the birth of her first child on 24th January, 1950 developed into unsoundness of mind despite continuous medical treatment, that after the birth of the last child in 1959, it became of a violent type, that she underwent treatment in the Christian College Hospital at Vellore, both as inpatient as well as out -patient from February 1961 till September, 1966, that the Doctors who attended on her pronounced her mental disorder to be incurable, that as a result of her mental condition, she could not understand the obligations of matrimony and perform her normal duties towards her children, a son and four daughters, and, that therefore, he is entitled to an order dissolving the marriage or in the alternative for judicial separation. The appellant had resisted the petition contending that she is not of unsound mind and that in any event the mental disorder complained of cannot be said to be incurable so as to attract the said S.13(1)(iii).

(2.) In support of his complaint that his wife was insane, the respondent has marked Ex.A -1, the case sheet maintained by the Christian College Hospital at Vellore which contains the prior history of the patient, the details of the treatment given and the condition of the patient at various stages of the treatment. The said history sheet showed that the mental disease of the appellant was diagnosed as paranoid Schizophrenia. He also examined the Doctor who treated the appellant from September, 1961 to December, 1965 at the Vellore Hospital as P.W. 1. She is a Psychiatric Specialist working in the Hospital at Vellore where the appellant admittedly underwent treatment. Her evidence is that she found the appellant suffering from mental illness, that the mental illness could not be completely cured in spite of the treatment given for five years, and that the illness was paranoid Schizophrenia. She has, however, admitted in cross -examination that some of the cases of Schizophrenia had been cured. Even at the time when she gave evidence as P.W. 1 she was giving treatment to the appellant. She was, therefore, categoric that the appellant had not been completely cured and that some of the initial ailments for which she came to her for treatment still persisted. The sum and substance of her evidence is that though paranoid Schizophrenia is a curable disease, the appellant could not be cured completely in spite of the continued treatment by her for five years. Mainly on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 1 and the history sheet, Ex. A -1, the trial court as well as the Appellate Court and Palaniswamy, J., in Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal held that the appellant has been proved to be incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of not less than three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and, therefore, the respondent is entitled to an order of dissolution of marriage.

(3.) In this appeal under the Letters Patent, the learned Counsel for the appellant contends that on the facts found, it cannot be said that the appellant was incurably of unsound mind and that too, for a continuous period of three years prior to the filing of the petition, that the history, sheet Ex.A -1, showed that her mental condition had improved at the time of the discharge from the hospital, that the admission of P.W. 1 that paranoid Schizophrenia is a curable mental disease and that the appellant can look after herself, clearly indicated that notwithstanding the persistence of the initial ailments, the appellant was in a position to lead a normal life attending to the needs of the husband and the children. It is also contended by the learned Counsel that the appellant has been examined as R.W.5 by the Court and the manner in which she answered all the questions showed that her mental condition was all right. The question as to whether a person suffered at any time from a particular disease is essentially a question of fact, and when concurrent findings had been recorded by all the three Courts on a consideration of the evidence on record and on the facts and circumstances of the case, they are not normally open to challenge in a Letters Patent appeal. It has been pointed out in Veera Reddy v/s. Krishnamma, A.I.R. 1969 Mad. 235;, 81 L.W. 890 (D.B.) by Ramamurti and Ramaprasada Rao, JJ. that in a Letters Patent appeal, the Bench is concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the conclusion of the learned single Judge, and if the latter was bound by certain limitations, the Bench will be equally bound by the same and that, therefore, the Bench also cannot travel outside S. 100of the C.P.C. Though the jurisdiction and power of the High Court under Cl.15 of the Letters Patent are wide and unqualified, the Court will be normally reluctant and does not lightly interfere with the finding of the Single Judge dealing with the second appeal. We have to therefore proceed on the basis of the facts found by the Courts below and consider whether those facts are sufficient to establish the ground alleged for dissolution of the marriage of the appellant with the respondent. As a matter of fact, the facts as found by the Courts below have not been seriously challenged before us.