Dissolution of Marriage on Grounds of idiocy or lunacy under Hindu marriage Act 1955.

 In the matter of : Om Prakash Gupta vs Puspa Kumari, citations: ILR 1969 Delhi 953, The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that:-

What  is the meaning of “an idiot” ?

In section 5(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) and how to determine whether a person is such an idito on the medical and other evidence in this case-are the two important questions for decision in this appeal by the husband whose petition under section 12(1)(b) of the Act for a decree of nullity against the respondent wife has been dismissed by the learned lower Court on the ground that the husband has failed to prove that wife, at the time of the marriage, was “an idiot”.

(2) The two provisions of the Act to be considered are : Section 5(ii) :

“Amarriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfillled, namely :

 (I)..

 (II)neither party is an idito or a lunatic at the time of the marriage.”

AND section 12(1) (b) :

12.(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely :

 (a)..

(B)That the marriage is in contravention of the condition sepeified in clause (ii) of section 5.”

 (3) The key to the interpretation of Sections 5(ii) and 12(1)(b) will be found in the long title of the Act which is as follows :    “ANAct to amend and codify the law relating to marriage among Hindus”. 

 (4) The Act thus partly embodies the existing Hindu Law and partly amends it. In 1955, the Legislature, therefore, in making this Act, drew upon two distinct sources, namely :    

 (A)the then existing Hindu Law and  

 (B)the English Common Law as modified by statutes.  

(5) The concept of idiocy and/or lunacy as a ground of incapacity was nto unknown to Hindu Law. Idiocy was a ground of disqualification of a person from inheritance. In R. Muthammal v. S. Devasthanam (1) paragraphs 9 and 10, one Ramasami Pillai was held to be insane being a “gloomy and sickly person with a vacant look” and unable to answer “even the simple question about his name. On the evidence, the attempted distinction between a lunatic and a person of week intellect could nto be sustained in that case. The Supreme Court apparently based its finding of lunacy on the complete loss of reason and intellect.

(6) Persons of unsound mind, i.e. idiots and lunatics, though disqualified for civil purposes generally, were nto declared incompetant to marry under the ancident Hindu Law. But such marriages were reprehensible. The late Sir Gurudas Banerjee in his Tagore Law Lectures on Marriage and Stridhan, therefore, expressed the view that “an idito and a lunatic being, where the loss of reason is complete, incompetent to accept the gift of the bride which is a necessary part of the ceremony of marriage, it is nto easy to understand how their marriage in such cases can be regarded as marriage at all”. (Fifth Edition, page 41). In Mouji Lal v. Chandrabati Kumari (2), the Privy Council did nto consider the question whether unsoundness of mind could in any circumstances, invalidate a Hindu marriage. Acting, however, on the hypothesis that it might, they pointed out that the degree of unsoundness would always have to be considered and in the particular cases berore them the man whose marriage was in question was nto so insane that he could nto understand the ceremonies of the marriage and, therefore, that particular marriage was nto invalid. The observations of the Privy Council were followed and Gurudas Banerjee’s view cited above was approved by the Federal Court in R. N. Singh v. Bhagwati Saran Singh (3) paragraphs 94 and 153 to 155. The following observation of B. K. Mukherjee J. is particularly instructive : “THEREare undoubtedly various degrees of insanity and the fact that a man has been adjudicated a lunatic may mean and imply that he is nto competent to manage his own affairs, but it does nto necessarily show that he suffers from complete mental aberration. He may have sufficient amount of reason still left in him which would enable him to understand the ceremonies of marriage”.

(7) There is a presumption that the Legislature does nto intend to change the law unless a statute clearly says so. It would be fair, therefore, to conclude that the words “idiot” and “lunatic” in section 5(ii) of the Act were used to indicate the total loss of reason or the last degree of mental disorder which alone would incapacitate a person from marriage inasmuch as this was the state of Hindu Law in 1955 when the Act came on the statute book.

(8) The concept of nullity of marriage was unknown to Hindu Law before the amendment made by sections 11 and 12 read with section 5 of the Act. Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, however, already existed on the Indian statute book outside the Hindu Law. It was in pari materia to sections 11 and 12 read (9) In its turn section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, derived the meaning of the word “idiot” from the English Common Law on which it was based. As shown by section 22 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, the’ Courts were to give relief of nullity of marriage on the same principles and rules on which the Ecclesiastical Court had done so before. Historically and prior to the Reformation, marriage in England was also regarded by the Church as a sacrament which could nto be dissolved by a decree of divorce avinculo mafrimonii. This doctrine of indissolubility came to be evaded in course of time by the evolution of decree annulling the marriage on the ground that due to the lack of certain essential conditions, the marriage itself could nto be validly performed. One such condition was the mental capacity of a party to the marriage. When a party was unable to consent to the marriage because of mental incapacity, there could be no marriage at all and the marriage which might have been gone through was void ipso jure. In Durham (5) , Sir James Hannen (President) said that the contract of marriage is a very simple one which does nto require a high degree of intelligence to comprehend.” In Marrod v. Harrod (6) a dumb and deaf lady of extremely dull intellect who could nto comprehend anything, could nto read or write, was never allowed to leave her home alone and Was unable to tell the value of money or how to give change, was still held to be capable of marriage. In Park v. Park (7) upheld in appeal in 1954 Probate Division 112, the marriage of a 78 year old man was held to be vaild though his mind had been found to be impaired after a stroke and hardening of the arteries and was incapable of full recovery, but was capable of understanding what marriage was.

(10) The definition of “an idiot” given in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Third Edition, Volume 2, page 1357, based on old decisions is as follows :

“IDIOT”is he that is a focl natural from his birth, and knoweth nto how to account or number twenty pence, or cannto name his father or mother, nor of what age himself is, or such like easie and common matters”.

“IDIOTS”were defined in the Menial Deficiency Act, 1913 as “persons so defective in mind from birth or from an early age as to be unabie to guard themselves against common physical dangers”. Under the Marriage of Lunatics Act, 1811, a person who has been found to be of insane mind by inquisition was disqualified from marriage. But a person nto so found by inquisition was nto disqualified if at the time of the marriage he or she was capable of understanding the nature of the contract and the duties and responsibilities thereby created, and was free from the influence of insane delusions on the subject. (19, Halsbury’s Laws of England 780, para 1250, Rayden on Divorce, Tenth Edition 101 and Tolstoy on the law and Practice of Divorce, Fifth Edition 109).

in this case to consider whether idiocy or lunacy constituting incapacity to marry and leading to a decree of nullity is capable of being distinguished from “unsoundness of mind” which may lead to judicial separation under section 10(1)(e) of the Act or to divorce under section 13(1)(iii) of the Act inasmuch as a different expression “unsound mind” has been used therein and the remedies of judicial separation and divorce are also different from the remedy of nullity. Remedy of nullity of marriage is based on incapacity to marry while the true purpose of divorce or judicial separation is to protect and relieve a spouse from misery or malaise as the outcome of cruelty or hardship. Nor are we concerned here with the meaning of the words “incurably of unsound mind” as being a ground for divorce in section l(i) (d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950, dealt with in Whysall v. Whysall (9) Chapman v. Chapman and Robinson v. Robinson . The test adopted therein is whether a person could manage himself and his own affairs. A similar test would appear to have been adopted in section 38 of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912. But the purpose of the Lunacy Act, 1912 as also of the English Mental Health Act, 1959, is the care and protction of a person of unsound mind. Unsoundness of mind is a general expression in which various degrees of mental derangement may be comprised. For the treatment of mental illness the legal definitions of idoicy or lunacy would nto be sufficient. Therefore, as observed in Taylor op cit, (page 433), in. section 4(2) of the Mental Health Act, 1959, a new concept of “severe subnormality” has been adopted to include different degrees of unsound mind, e.g. “idiots” “imbeciles” and the lower grades of the “feeble minded” while the concept of “subnormality” in section 4(3) thereof includes the majority of the “feeble minded”. This shows that for the medical purposes, the approach to the subject of unsoundness of mind is likely to be different from the approach for the purposes of law. Unsoundness of mind may become relevant even for the purposes of law in different contexts such as responsibility for cirminal act (section 84 of the Indian and Code based on the McNaghten Rules) entering into ordinary contracts (saction 12 of the Contract Act) and mangement of property (Lunancy Act). It would nto perhaps be possible to regard unsoundness of mind for all these purposes to be the same thing. Even in the Law of -Marriage, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has used different expressions indicating mental abnormality as a ground for nullity due to incapacity to marry on the one hand and as a ground for judicial separation or divorce on the other hand. Two rules of statutory construction may be borne in mind in this connection. Firstly, expressions used in different statutes which are nto in pari materia do nto necessarily mean the same thing. Secondly, different expressions used in the same statute are nto ordinarily meant to convey the same meaning.

(24) As instances in which the above-mentioned rules of statutory construction do nto seem to have been taken into account, reference may be made to two recent decisions, one dealing with idiocy, namely, Ajitrai v. Bai Vasumati (12) and the other dealing with lunacy, namely, Anima Roy v. Probodh Mohan Roy It is nto necessary however to consider in the present case, whether a part of the reasoning in these two decisions is vulnerable due to this lacuna.

(25) As the evidence in the present case does nto indicate want of rational conduct on the part of the wife, she cannto be regarded as having been an idito at the time of the marriage. The petition for annulment of the marriage was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the learned lower Court. In view of the further consideration given to the question by me above, the appeal is also dismissed with costs.