UJWALA Vs. UDAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Ujwala who happens to be the wife of the respondent has come up in appeal against the decree of divorce passed against her by the learned Assistant Judge, Nanded in the Hindu Marriage Petition No. 33 of 1983 on 29-9-1984.

(2.) The present appellant was married to the respondent on 26th Feb., 1982. Prior to the marriage she was serving at Aurangabad, as a Postal Assistant. The respondent was serving in the State Bank of Hyderabad at Nanded. The marriage was celebrated according to the Hindu rites. After the marriage they were living together at Nanded as husband and wife and it is not disputed that till Dec., 1982, they had a very happy married life.

(3.) According to the husband Uday Joshi on or about 17th Dec., 1982, while the appellant was staying with him as his wife she had an episode of psychiatric attack as a result of which she became suddenly violent and started behaving dangerously by throwing articles in her vicinity. The husband was very much disturbed by this. Fortunately, at this time Dr. Barhale, Psychiatrist from Aurangabad, was camping at Nanded. The appellant was taken to him and he diagnosed it as a case of schizophrenia. Dr. Barhale also told the respondent that the appellant has been an old patient of this dreadful disease even prior to her marriage when she was under his treatment. He advised prolonged treatment for the wife. Accordingly, on the advice of the Doctor Barhale, the appellant was taken to Pune where she was under the treatment of Dr. Sathe another Psychiatrist. The respondent came to know that schizophrenia is an incurable disease. It is his contention that though the appellant was suffering from this disease even prior to the marriage, this fact was never disclosed to him either by the appellant or by her parents or any relations. With the result that the fraud was committed against him. Had he known that this fact prior to the marriage he would never have entered into this marriage. It is his contention that the present psychiatric condition of the respondent is so dangerous that it did not permit him to live with her and perform matrimonial obligations. On these allegations he claimed a decree of annulment of the marriage or in the alternative a decree of dissolution of the marriage under Sec. 13(l)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.