This article has been written by Ms. Mahi Agrawal, a first-year student at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur.
Abstract
The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 and the Special Marriage Act of 1954 both recognise major mental disorders as preconditions for marriage and as grounds for divorce. This article critically analyses these legal provisions, asserting that the impacts and repercussions of mental health disorders extend beyond a mere diagnostic classification. It delves into how the Courts ensure justice without worsening the vulnerabilities of the disabled party. Over time, substantial changes in societal attitude and advancements in the effective treatment of mental disorders have occurred since the enactment of marriage laws. The article advocates for a refinement of the criterion of “incurability” for mental disorders as a ground for divorce, emphasising the need for a more concise and specific terminology.
Introduction
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 forms the sole source of Hindu personal laws on Hindu marriages and divorce. It recognises major mental disorders as preconditions for marriage and provides grounds for divorce. Section 5(ii) of the Act outlines specific conditions pertaining to mental disorders that must be met before the sacred bond of marriage is solemnized. The stipulations under this section are threefold, firstly, neither party should be incapable of providing a valid consent due to unsoundness of mind. Secondly, even if capable of giving consent, individuals must not suffer from mental disorders to an extent that deems them unfit for marriage and the responsibility of procreation. Lastly, marriages are precluded if either party is prone to recurrent attacks of insanity. Marriages found in contravention to these provisions fall under the category of voidable marriages, as defined by Section 12 of the Act. Voidable marriages are those that may be annulled by a decree of nullity based on specific grounds, yet they remain legally valid until such a decree is granted by a competent court. As per Section 13 of the Act, divorce and judicial separation can be granted in cases where an individual is deemed “incurably of unsound mind” or has been experiencing a “mental disorder of a nature and degree that makes it unreasonable for the petitioner to continue living with the respondent, either continuously or intermittently.” The Special Marriage Act of 1954 caters to individuals in India and Indian nationals residing abroad, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Section 4(a) of the Act is identical to Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Likewise, Section 27 enumerated provisions identical to those in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act concerning grounds for divorce.
Disability as a Ground for Divorce
The original clause, which read “neither party is an idiot or lunatic”, was altered to its present wording through the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act 1976. Additionally, the disqualification for marriage on the grounds of “recurrent attacks of epilepsy” was eliminated by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act 1999. As held in R. Lakshmi Narayan v. Santhi, challenging a marriage based on mental incapacity necessitates an evaluation of the extent of the deficiency to invalidate a marriage that has already taken place. The responsibility of invoking this clause lies significantly with the petitioner seeking annulment on grounds of unsoundness of mind or mental disorder. To brand the wife as unsuitable for marriage and childbearing due to a mental disorder, it must be proven that her condition is so severe that normal married life becomes impossible. As per the explanation provided in Section 13 (iii) of the Act, the term “mental disorder” encompasses mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder, or any other form of disorder or disability of the mind, which explicitly includes schizophrenia. Additionally, the term “psychopathic disorder” is defined as a persistent disorder or disability of the mind, irrespective of whether it involves sub-normality of intelligence, leading to abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct by the other party, regardless of its necessity for or susceptibility to medical treatment. In another case, where the husband concealed the fact that he was suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder (mania) and Astrial Septal Defect, the Jharkhand High Court rightly annulled the marriage by a decree of nullity. Further, when a husband wasn’t willing to resume their matrimonial life because his wife was unable to procreate a child, appeal for annulment of marriage under Section 12 (1) (b) read with Section 5 (ii) (b) by seeking a decree of divorce in the ground of desertion under Section 13 of the Act was dismissed.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Sharda v. Dharampal, established that to obtain a divorce decree, the petitioner must prove that the respondent’s unsoundness of mind is incurable or their mental disorder is of such a nature and extent that cohabitation is not reasonably possible. The opinion of a medical professional hold significant weight in deciding whether to grant or deny a divorce petition. It was held that a matrimonial court is empowered to mandate a person to undergo a medical examination. In the event that the respondent refuses the court-ordered medical examination, the court reserves the right to draw an adverse inference against them. In the case of Smt. Rita Roy v. Sitesh Chandra Bhadra, it was acknowledged that a schizophrenic patient can recover from their illness through treatment and, upon recovery, can engage in activities such as examinations, household chores, and other tasks. The Court further determined that the wife only had a mild mental disorder, experiencing intermittent episodes. It was concluded that the mental disorder was not of a nature and extent that would make it unreasonable for the husband to live with her, as defined in the second part of the Clause (iii) of Section 13(1) of the Act. It is expected that the husband should exercise tolerance, especially considering the passage of seven years since marriage and the birth of a child, and refrain from filing a divorce suit. These judgements hold notable significance as they prioritize the assessment of the effects and impact of mental illness over the mere categorisation or labelling of the condition. The implications and consequences of a mental health disorder on individuals and relationships carry more weight than a simple diagnostic level.
Stigma of Disabilities and Mental Disorders
In India, mental illness remains subject to pervasive stigma, discouraging many individuals from seeking assistance due to apprehensions about judgment and discrimination. This reluctance poses a substantial challenge to efforts aimed at raising awareness about mental health and promoting treatment-seeking behaviour. Unfortunately, women bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to mental health issues. The situation is relatively less dire for men, where concealment of severe mental disorders often ends up placing an added responsibility on the woman. The stigma associated with separation or divorce is often more keenly felt by families and individuals than the stigma attached to mental illness itself. When a woman exhibits signs of mental disorders or disabilities, parents tend to deliberately conceal these facts. However, when the truth eventually surfaces, these women experience abandonment by their husbands and their families. Their lives are irreparably shattered.
The Calcutta High Court, in the case of Pramatha Kumar Maity v. Ashima Maity, upheld that the legislature does not consider unsoundness of mind or mental disorder, in itself, as a matrimonial fault unless the condition is incurable or disables the individuals from being reasonably tolerable matrimonial partner. Notably, the respondent wife, a village woman without education and solely dependent on her financially struggling father, faced abandonment by her moderately well-placed government officer husband. Recognising the principle that, when two perspectives are plausible- either on facts or law- the one favouring the weaker party should be embraced whenever possible, the Court rightly affirmed the dismissal of the husband’s petition. Decisions like these exemplify a delicate balance between recognising disabilities as grounds for divorce and upholding social justice while safeguarding the rights of individuals with disabilities. The Court, in the above case, ensured that justice is served without worsening the vulnerabilities of the disabled party.
Necessity of Amendments for Upholding the Right of Persons with Disabilities
Since the enactment of marriage laws, considerable changes have occurred overtime with advancements in the effective treatment of various mental disorders and disabilities. It is high time that the phrases referring to mental disorders within the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act must be revisited and revised. Removing such explicit references aligns with a more inclusive and compassionate approach to complexities of human relationships. The reasons for the proposed revision could be summarised as follows:
Vagueness of Terms
It is important to note that sterility is not cited as a legal ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The challenges related to the ability to procreate involve an array of factors. Given that mental disorders represent only a fraction of the factors contributing to this incapacity, it is unjust to exclusively include mental disorders as a form of disability while omitting numerous physical ailments. The term “mental disorders” is inherently vague and poses a challenge in determining how an individual with such condition is considered unfit for marriage. There exist several physical illnesses that could render a person unsuitable for marriage, yet these aren’t outlines as conditions of disability. This highlights the discriminatory nature inherent in the vague terminology involved.
Stigmatization of Mental Disorders
In Hindu marriage rituals, the bride’s consent is often not directly sought, with consent commonly provided by her parents or guardians. Even when the consent is obtained, individuals with significant mental disorders typically have the capacity to give their consent, unless they are experiencing acute symptoms. While the requirement for valid consent is deemed essential, it could be maintained without specifically referencing “unsoundness of mind.” The inclusion of this term is unnecessary and contributes to the stigmatization of mental disorders. Additionally, the term “insanity” has ceased to be employed in medical contexts, but it continues to persist in legal terminology. Recurrent attacks of insanity serve as a basis for the annulment of marriage. Since it is deemed inhumane to view epilepsy as a hindrance to marriage, a similar perspective must be extended to the term “insanity”. Such stigmatization perpetuates a disheartening and outdated perspective.
- Medical progress
Owing to the advancement in psychiatry, majority of mental disorders are now treatable. Such effective treatment allows the vast majority of individuals, with only a small fraction as an exception, to live normal lives. Mood disorders, encompassing a spectrum from mild spells of sadness to severe psychotic episodes are potentially curable. Similarly, improved treatments have significantly enhances the prognosis, enabling most individuals with schizophrenia to lead normal lives. Therefore, within the context of divorce or judicial separation, the term “incurably of unsound mind” is unreasonable. It doesn’t acknowledge the progress in medical science and doesn’t align with the current understanding and treatment capabilities for mental health conditions.
- Right of People with Disabilities to Live with Dignity
Every individual with a mental disorder possesses the inherent right to enter into marriage and lead a life marked by dignity. Section 3(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act mandates the responsible government to ensure that individuals with disabilities, including mental disorders, enjoy the right to equality, a life with dignity, and respect for their integrity on par with others. Additionally, the UN Convention on the Right of Persons with disabilities, signed by India in 2006, guarantees the complete and equitable enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for individuals with disabilities. Mental illness falls within the recognised categories of disability according to the UNCRPD. Consequently, the deprivation of the right to marry for individuals with mental disorders doesn’t align with the principles outlined in the UNCRPD. Depriving the option to marry through legal restrictions denies these people the essential support that marriage as an institution provides.
Conclusion
The institution of marriage holds significant cultural and religious importance in India, especially among the Hindu community. In this context, the law should function as a supportive force within societies. As the field of psychiatry undergoes remarkable advancements, the majority of mental disorders are now treatable, enabling affected individuals to lead fulfilling and normal lives. The criterion of “incurability” for mental disorders as a ground for divorce in marriage laws needs to be refined to be more concise and specific. It would safeguard the interests of vulnerable individuals and ensure that people with disabilities, including mental disorders, enjoy a life of dignity and embrace the institution of marriage without legal hindrances.
REFERENCES
- This article was originally written by Choudhary Laxmi Narayan, Mridula Narayan, Deep Shikha and Shivendra Shekhar and published on Indian Journal of Psychiatry. The link for the same is herein: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4711231/
- Disability Rights (Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act & National Trust Act) and Mental Healthcare Act published by National Human Rights Commission, India, 2021. The link for the same is herein:
https://nhrc.nic.in/sites/default/files/DisabilityRights.pdf