Introduction:
In the matrimonial appeal X v. Y [FA(MAT) No. 55 of 2023], decided on August 14, 2025, the Chhattisgarh High Court, through a Division Bench comprising Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, dealt with the sensitive issue of annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of alleged mental illness of the wife. The Court categorically held that in matrimonial proceedings, where one spouse seeks annulment of marriage citing the other spouse’s mental disorder, it is imperative that the allegation is supported by cogent medical evidence, including expert testimony and records of clinical diagnosis. Mere production of prescriptions, without examination of doctors or expert witnesses, is insufficient to establish such a serious ground.
The appeal arose from a petition filed by the husband seeking annulment of his marriage with the wife, alternatively seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty. The Family Court had dismissed the petition on the basis that the husband failed to substantiate his claims of the wife suffering from schizophrenia prior to or during the marriage. Aggrieved, the husband approached the High Court in appeal.
Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant-Husband:
The appellant-husband, represented by Advocate Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, submitted that his marriage with the respondent-wife was solemnized on March 03, 2008. The couple had two daughters from the marriage. According to him, the wife and her family misrepresented her mental condition at the time of marriage, portraying her as healthy and normal. However, soon after the marriage, he began to notice abnormal and erratic behavior on her part.
The husband alleged that the wife frequently shouted without provocation, damaged household articles, used abusive language against family members, and often beat the children without any reason. Alarmed by these developments, he arranged for her medical examination, which, according to him, confirmed that she was suffering from schizophrenia, a severe mental disorder. The appellant stressed that her condition was not temporary or curable but of such a nature that made her unfit for marital life and procreation of children.
It was further contended that the wife deserted the matrimonial home in October 2018 and never returned, thereby causing mental cruelty to the husband and the children. The appellant argued that her illness existed since before the marriage and that the wife’s family deliberately concealed this fact, thereby committing fraud. Based on this, annulment was sought under Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the alternative, divorce was sought under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The appellant relied on medical prescriptions allegedly issued by two psychiatrists who had treated the respondent. He argued that these prescriptions, coupled with his testimony, were sufficient to prove the wife’s mental incapacity. The counsel for the appellant asserted that in cases where the conduct of a spouse clearly indicates a severe psychological disorder, strict insistence on expert testimony should not defeat substantive justice.
Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent-Wife:
The respondent-wife, represented by Advocate Mr. Pushkar Sinha, denied all allegations. She argued that the appellant failed to discharge the heavy burden of proof required under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was submitted that the mere filing of medical prescriptions, without examining the treating doctors or producing any clinical diagnostic records, could not establish the existence of a serious mental illness like schizophrenia.
The respondent’s counsel stressed that schizophrenia is a complex psychiatric condition that requires careful diagnosis by competent medical experts, often after prolonged evaluation. Courts, being ill-equipped to independently assess medical disorders, must rely on expert testimony. In this case, the appellant neither summoned the doctors who allegedly treated the respondent nor produced any certificate or diagnostic report confirming schizophrenia. Thus, the claim remained speculative.
The respondent also highlighted that the marriage lasted for over a decade and resulted in the birth of two daughters, which by itself contradicted the appellant’s claim of her incapacity for marriage and procreation. Even if occasional domestic discord occurred, it could not be equated with a medically proven psychiatric condition. The Family Court had rightly concluded that the appellant failed to substantiate his allegations with cogent evidence, and therefore the dismissal of the annulment and divorce petition was fully justified.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
The Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court analyzed the case in light of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, particularly Section 12(1)(b), which allows annulment if one party was of unsound mind or suffered from a mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to make them unfit for marriage and procreation of children.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, speaking for the Bench, emphasized that allegations of mental incapacity in matrimonial cases must be proven with clear and convincing evidence. A mental disorder, especially schizophrenia, cannot be assumed based on isolated incidents of erratic behavior or vague assertions. Courts require substantive medical evidence, including expert testimony, clinical records, and diagnostic reports, to conclude that the spouse was indeed suffering from such a disorder.
The Court noted that in the present case, the appellant failed to produce any such evidence. While he claimed that the respondent was treated by two psychiatrists, neither of them was examined as a witness. No diagnostic report or certificate was produced. The only documents filed were prescriptions, which at best indicated that the respondent had been prescribed certain medications, but did not conclusively establish the presence or severity of schizophrenia.
The Court referred to the landmark judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Sm. Anima Roy v. Probodh Mohan Roy (1968), where it was held that in the absence of expert testimony or examination of treating doctors, courts cannot accept allegations of mental disorder merely on assumptions. Relying on this principle, the Bench held that the burden of proof under Section 12 lies heavily on the petitioner, and cannot be satisfied by mere prescriptions or allegations.
The Bench also rejected the claim of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib), observing that the appellant failed to prove that the wife’s conduct amounted to legal cruelty or that she deserted the matrimonial home without reasonable cause. The long duration of the marriage, the birth of two children, and the absence of concrete medical evidence weighed heavily against the appellant’s case.
In conclusion, the Court affirmed the order of the Family Court dismissing the annulment and divorce petition. It reiterated that matrimonial disputes based on allegations of mental disorder must be proved by cogent, trustworthy, and expert medical evidence. Mere filing of prescriptions or relying on assumptions about behavior cannot suffice.