Matrimonial Dispute | Strong Prima Facie Evidence Needed To Refer Wife To Board Of Psychiatrist For Medical Examination: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that there should be strong prima facie evidence to consider an application filed by the husband who is seeking divorce, to refer the wife to a Board of Psychiatrists for medical examination on the ground of her being of unsound mind.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by a husband who questioned the order of the family court which kept in abeyance his application seeking to refer the wife to a Board of Psychiatrists at NIMHANS for medical examination. It also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner (husband) to be paid 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 got married on 26-11-2020. Several grievances and disputes arose between the two and on 28-01-2021 it is alleged by the petitioner that the wife moved to her parents house along with her clothing and has not returned back to the petitioner till date.

The wife on 14-06-2022 registered a complaint before the K.P. Agrahara Police Station for offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet against the petitioner/husband.

Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a petition seeking annulment of marriage before the jurisdictional Family Court on the ground of cruelty. During pendency an application was filed under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code to refer the wife to NIMHANS for a detailed psychiatric medical examination.

The petitioner argued that he has evidence of the wife not being in sound mind as at the out-patient examination at Victoria Hospital it is the assessment of the doctor that her mental age is 11 years and 8 months and has only borderline intelligence. If she is not of sound mind and appropriate intelligence and is not 18-years old, the marriage itself is void, he contended.

The wife opposed the petition and placed on record documents before the concerned Court to demonstrate that she is a singer, a teacher and is now attending Government Polytechnic for Women to continue her studies and has also passed several technical examinations. She questioned how a woman with such traits has 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.”

Appearance: Advocate Nagaraj N R for Petitioner

Advocate Latha G for Respondent

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 130

Case Title: ABC AND XYZ

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.26295 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order