Failure on wife’s part to disclose her mental disorder before her marriage, constitutes fraud: Delhi HC

Read Order: Sandeep Aggarwal vs. Priyanka Aggarwal 

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, December 27, 2021: While stating that in a case of mental illness the Court has adequate power to examine the party or get him examined by a qualified doctor, the Delhi High Court has opined that the Court may take recourse to such a procedure even at the instance of the party to the lis. 

A Division Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh therefore observed that the implicit power of a court to direct medical examination of a party to a matrimonial litigation in a case of dispute regarding spouse’s mental illness, cannot beheld to be violative of one’s right of privacy.

The observation came pursuant to an appeal filed u/s 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 r/w/s 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 on behalf of Sandeep Aggarwal (Appellant – husband) against the judgment passed by the Family Court, Dwarka, wherein the petition u/s 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the appellant seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights clubbed with the divorce petition, came to be dismissed. 

As per the appellant, the marriage between the appellant and Priyanka Aggarwal (Respondent) was the outcome of a calculated fraud that was perpetrated by the respondent and her family members as they chose not to disclose a vital and crucial fact regarding the respondent’s mental health/ailment. According to the appellant, the respondent was suffering from Acute Schizophrenia. 

After considering the arguments, the High Court noted that that for the purpose of grant of a decree of divorce what is necessary is that the appellant must establish that unsoundness of mind of the respondent is incurable or his/her mental disorder is of such a kind and to such an extent that he cannot reasonably be expected to live with his/her spouse. 

At the same time, medical testimony being the evidence of experts would not leave the court from the obligation of satisfying itself on the point in issue beyond reasonable doubt, added the Court. 

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Singh observed that a matrimonial court has the power to order a person to undergo medical test, and passing of such an order would not be in violation of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

“A combined reading of the evidence as well as the admission of the respondent, even though, may not conclusively prove that the respondent was suffering from Schizophrenia/Hebephrenia- F-20 prior to her marriage, at the time of her marriage, and; subsequent to her marriage, but definitely raises a serious doubt about the mental health of the respondent, and points to the possibility of the appellant’s allegations in that regard being true”, observed the Division Bench. 

Justice Singh therefore observed that the Family Court was duty bound to direct the medical examination of the respondent, and that the appellant could not have been left to gather evidence of the respondent’s mental condition on his own.

The Division Bench highlighted the fact that the parties could not live together beyond nine weeks itself shows that the mental disorder suffered by the respondent is of a kind, and to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children. 

It is not the case of the respondent that either of the conditions enumerated in Section 12(2)(a)(i), or (ii) exists in the present case, which would have debarred the appellant from seeking annulment of marriage on the ground contained in Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, added the Bench. 

Therefore, the High Court concluded that failure on the part of the respondent to disclose her mental disorder before her marriage with the appellant – as alleged by him, constituted a fraud perpetrated upon the appellant. 

Hence, the High Court annulled the marriage between the appellant and the respondent on the ground contained in Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.