The Karnataka High Court emphasized the necessity for compelling prima facie evidence in cases where a husband, pursuing divorce, seeks to have his wife referred to a Board of Psychiatrists for a medical examination, citing concerns about her mental health.
In a decision delivered by Justice M Nagaprasanna, sitting as a single judge bench, the court dismissed a husband’s petition challenging a family court’s ruling that had temporarily halted his request to send his wife for a medical evaluation by a Board of Psychiatrists at NIMHANS. Furthermore, the court imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner (the husband), payable to the wife.
It said “It is not the law that once such an application is filed it should be straight away accepted and matter should be referred for such test. There should be strong prima case ground and sufficient material. The sufficient material, in the case at hand, is against the petitioner.”
The couple entered into marriage on November 26, 2020. Various grievances and conflicts emerged between them, and on January 28, 2021, the petitioner alleges that the wife relocated to her parents’ residence with her belongings and has not returned to the petitioner since then.
On June 14, 2022, the wife filed a complaint with the K.P. Agrahara Police Station, alleging offenses under Section 498A of the IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, following an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner/husband.
Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a petition for the annulment of marriage with the jurisdictional Family Court, citing cruelty as grounds. Amidst these proceedings, an application was submitted under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code, urging the referral of the wife to NIMHANS for a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation.
The petitioner contended that there exists evidence suggesting the wife’s lack of mental soundness, citing an outpatient evaluation at Victoria Hospital where a doctor assessed her mental age as 11 years and 8 months, with borderline intelligence. He argued that if she lacks mental soundness, appropriate intelligence, and is not of legal age, the marriage itself should be considered void.
In response, the wife opposed the petition and presented documents to the court indicating her pursuits as a singer and a teacher. She also stated her enrollment in Government Polytechnic for Women to further her education, having successfully passed several technical examinations. She questioned how a woman with such accomplishments could be assessed to have a mental age of 11 years and 8 months.
The bench referring to the alleged note written by the wife indicating of her admitting to be of unsound mind said “The said note stated to be that of the 1st respondent is undated and does not contain to whom it is addressed.”
Further, referring to the out-patient slip of Victoria hospital it said “All these would be a matter of evidence. This would not ipso facto mean that the 1st respondent is mentally unsound. The wife has produced a plethora of documents to demonstrate that she is highly talented and has been participating in several cultural competitions and has earned several encomiums. A perusal of all of which would clearly indicate that the husband is trying to prepare a platform in his favour for seeking annulment of marriage before the concerned Court. No fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the concerned Court dated 28-07-2023.”
Relying on Apex court judgment in the case of SHARDA v. DHARMPAL, (2003) 4 SCC 493, the court held “It is rather unfortunate that by seeking annulment of marriage, the husband has sought to project the wife being of unsound mind, her intelligence is at 11 years and 8 months and seeks to contend that the marriage itself is void and a fraud is being played by the respondents on the petitioner on the score that if the mental age of the wife is not that of 18 years of age, the marriage is void. Such submissions are noted only to be rejected, as the husband has not preferred a petition before the concerned Court invoking mental unsoundness of the wife, but it is on cruelty.”