No Medical Evidence, No Divorce: Jharkhand HC Upholds Dismissal of Husband's Plea Alleging Wife's Mental Illness
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed a first appeal by a husband seeking divorce on grounds of mental illness and cruelty, finding his case rested entirely on oral allegations without any medical evidence.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, has dismissed a first appeal filed by a husband, Abhay Prasad, challenging the Family Court's refusal to grant him a divorce. The husband had sought dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) and Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging that his wife, Nikki Kumari, suffered from a chronic and incurable mental disorder and had treated him with cruelty. The Division Bench found that the husband produced no medical expert, no documentary evidence of any psychiatric treatment, and no credible material to establish either ground. The Family Court's dismissal of Original Suit No. 201 of 2018 was held to be well-reasoned and free from perversity.
The Marriage and the Divorce Petition
Abhay Prasad and Nikki Kumari were married on 22 June 2017 at R.R.P. Goenka Sewa Sadan, Kutiya Road, Giridih, as per Hindu rites in the presence of relatives of both families. After the marriage, Nikki Kumari came to her matrimonial home at Mohali Chuwan, Giridih.
Abhay Prasad's case before the Family Court was that on the very first night of the marriage he discovered his wife was acting in an abnormal manner — described as aggressive, hostile and suspicious. He alleged she suffered from a chronic and incurable mental disorder and that the marriage could not be consummated because of her mental illness. He further alleged that the parents of Nikki Kumari had suppressed her pre-existing mental illness before the marriage and had obtained his consent by fraud. On these grounds, he filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Nikki Kumari denied every allegation. Her case was that she had never suffered from any mental illness. She stated that she lived in the matrimonial home and led a conjugal life, but was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband and his family members on account of a demand for a four-wheelers vehicle as additional dowry. She stated she was ultimately expelled from the matrimonial home on 17 September 2017 after her ornaments were snatched, and that she had all along been ready and willing to return to her husband.
Her father, examined as O.P.W. 1, stated that at the time of marriage he had given Rs. 11,00,000 in cash and gold and silver ornaments worth Rs. 8,00,000. He denied that his daughter suffered from any mental disease and alleged that his son-in-law wished to contract a second marriage, which was the real motive behind the false allegations.
What the Witnesses Said
The husband examined four witnesses before the Family Court: himself (P.W. 1), his mother Sunaina Devi (P.W. 2), a neighbour Vijay Kumar Laheri (P.W. 3), and his brother Amit Prasad (P.W. 4). The wife examined three witnesses: her father Ajay Kumar Sah (O.P.W. 1), a witness Rajiv Ranjan (O.P.W. 2), and herself (O.P.W. 3).
Critically, no documentary evidence was produced by the husband's side. In his cross-examination, Abhay Prasad admitted that he had not had his wife examined by any doctor. He admitted that before the marriage his family had met the respondent at her home, liked her, and thereafter negotiated and arranged the marriage. He further disclosed that the respondent had registered a criminal case against him (P.S. Case No. 30/19) at Kodwa P.S., Pune, and that he had been called to the police station in that connection.
P.W. 3, the neighbour who deposed about the first night, admitted in cross-examination that he was not actually present at the matrimonial home on that night and that whatever he knew about the alleged mental illness had been told to him by the petitioner. P.W. 4, the brother, admitted that his family had travelled to see Nikki Kumari before the marriage and that it was only after the family liked her that the marriage was arranged.
On the wife's side, the Family Court noted that Nikki Kumari gave coherent and well-reasoned answers throughout her cross-examination. Nothing in the cross-examination suggested mental illness.
How the Bench Analysed the Ground of Cruelty
The Division Bench set out the legal framework on cruelty with reference to a series of Supreme Court decisions, including Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane [(1975) 2 SCC 326], Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi [(1988) 1 SCC 105], V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.) [(1994) 1 SCC 337], Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate [(2003) 6 SCC 334], and Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar [(2021) 3 SCC 742]. These cases collectively establish that cruelty under matrimonial law extends to mental cruelty and that conduct must be grave and weighty, not trivial friction.
The Bench found that in his testimony, Abhay Prasad had not alleged that Nikki Kumari abused or assaulted him or any member of his family after the marriage. His sole narration was that the marriage was not consummated because of her alleged mental disorder. However, he produced no cogent evidence before the Family Court to prove non-consummation.
The mother's testimony (P.W. 2, Sunaina Devi) was similarly found to contain no allegation that Nikki Kumari had abused or assaulted her son or any family member.
The Bench observed that the account given by Nikki Kumari — that she remained in the matrimonial home until 17 September 2017, a period of approximately three months, being tortured over the four-wheelers demand before being expelled — stood in direct contradiction to the husband's claim that she lived with him for only one day. This factual contradiction, unrebutted by any credible material, weighed against the husband.
The Bench concluded: it is evident that there is no cogent or reliable evidence on record to establish that the respondent/wife committed cruelty upon the appellant/husband. It held that the Family Court had rightly evaluated the evidence on this ground and saw no reason to take a different view.
How the Bench Analysed the Ground of Mental Illness
The Bench set out Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides two distinct grounds: first, that the other party has been incurably of unsound mind; and second, that the other party has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. The Explanation to the clause defines “mental disorder” to include mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder, and schizophrenia.
The Bench drew on Kollam Chandra Sekhar v. Kollam Padma Latha [(2014) 1 SCC 225], which in turn adopted the ratio from Ram Narain Gupta v. Rameshwari Gupta [(1988) 4 SCC 247]. That position is that Section 13(1)(iii) does not make the mere existence of any degree of mental abnormality a sufficient ground for dissolution; the degree of mental disorder must be such that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. The Bench also noted the caution that the term “has been suffering” implies the period of illness must not be too short or based on one or two isolated instances.
The Bench emphasised that proving mental illness under this provision requires expert evidence. A psychiatrist, being an expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, would give evidence based on examination of the patient, symptoms, treatment records, and follow-up. Such evidence could be corroborated or contradicted by the conduct of the respondent and the circumstances in evidence.
Against that standard, the husband's case collapsed entirely. Not a single medical practitioner was examined. No psychiatric record, prescription, hospital document, or medical certificate was placed on record. The admitted facts worked against the husband: his own family had met Nikki Kumari before the marriage, approved of her, and arranged the match. The husband himself admitted in cross-examination that he had not taken his wife to any doctor.
The Bench also took note of Nikki Kumari's conduct during the trial itself. She filed her examination-in-chief by affidavit and was cross-examined at length on 30 November 2022. The Family Court had observed that she answered all questions coherently and in a well-mannered fashion. Nothing in the cross-examination revealed any symptom of mental illness.
The Bench further observed that if the wife did have any health problem, the husband was obliged to take her to a competent medical practitioner for examination and treatment. The bare allegation of mental illness, without any such step, could not in law constitute a ground for divorce.
The Perversity Standard and the Appellate Threshold
The husband's principal ground of appeal was that the Family Court had not properly appreciated the oral evidence and had arrived at a perverse finding. The Bench set out the meaning of “perverse” as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Arulvelu and Anr. v. State [(2009) 10 SCC 206]: a finding is perverse if it is arrived at by ignoring relevant material, by taking into consideration irrelevant material, or if it so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from irrationality.
Applying that standard, the Bench found the Family Court's judgment to be neither against the evidence nor a product of erroneous consideration. The Family Court had consciously considered the testimonies of all witnesses and had arrived at reasoned conclusions on both the cruelty and mental illness issues. The Bench found no infirmity warranting interference under the appellate jurisdiction.
Order
The Division Bench, by its judgment dated 23 July 2026, dismissed First Appeal No. 165 of 2023. The judgment dated 19 April 2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih in Original Suit No. 201 of 2018, dismissing the husband's divorce petition, was affirmed. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of. The judgment was authored by Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, with Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava concurring.