CONVERSION.—
If the respondent ceases to be a Hindu by change of religion, the divorce can be granted on that ground.
For Hindu, conversion to another religion means non-Hindu religion such as Christianity, or Islam. Conversion to Buddhist, Jain or Sikh is not conversion to another religion because the Act deems Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs to be Hindus.
Conversion to another religion does not ipso facto dissolve the marriage. The petitioner is required to obtain a decree of divorce on that ground from a competent court.
Merely ceasing to be a Hindu would not amount to change of religion. It is only when he or she embraces another religion after renunciation of Hinduism that the decree of divorce is obtainable on that ground (Chandra Shekhar v. Kuldan Vein, 1963 S.C. 185.)
In Madanam Seetha Ramulu v. Madanam Vimlaf wife was Hindu by birth and she got herself converted into Christianity after her marriage. In this case the divorce petition was filed by the husband on the ground of conversion of spouse into another religion. In this case the court has held that on the ground of conversion husband is entitled to decree of divorce.
The marriage which can be dissolved on this ground is a marriage solemnised under the provisions of this Act or according to old Hindu law. Marriage solemnised under special statutes cannot be dissolved and are not covered by the provisions of this Section (4 Bom. 330.).
UNSOUNDNESS OFMIND.
For seeking divorce under section 13(1) (iii), the petitioner must prove following:
1. Respondent is suffering from unsoundness of mind which is incurable or
2. Respondent is suffering from mental disorder which may be continuous or intermittent and which is such kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with him.
For seeking divorce under section 13(1) (iii), the petitioner must prove following:
1. Respondent is suffering from unsoundness of mind which is incurable or
2. Respondent is suffering from mental disorder which may be continuous or intermittent and which is such kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with him.
Incurable unsoundness of mind or continuous or intermittent mental disorder of such a nature as to disable the petitioner to live reasonably makes the petitioner eligible to get a decree of divorce.
The expression "mental disorder" has been explained in the Act itself and it means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia.
Schizophrenia has been defined in Livingstone's Medical Dictionary, "as a group of mental illness characterised by disorganisation of the patient's personality, often resulting in chronic lifelong ill-health and hospitalization. In its simple form the patient is dull, withdrawn, solidary and inactive. Many patients exhibit delusions, usually of a bizarre type and hallucinations."
The expression "psychopathic disorder" has also been defined in the Act itself and it means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub-normality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment.
In Ram Narain Gupta v. Smt. Rameshwari the Supreme Court elaborately examined the degree of mental disorder which will enable an aggrieved party to a marriage to obtain a decree of divorce. It held that the context in which the idea of unsoundhess of 'mind' and "mental disorder" occurs in the section as grounds for dissolution of a marriage requires the assessment of the degree of the mental disorder. Its degree must be such as that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not recognised as grounds for grant of decree. If mere existence of any degree of mental abnormality could justify dissolution of a marriage, few marriages would; indeed, survive in law.
"Schizophrenia" it is true is said to be a difficult mental application. Not all schizophrenias are characterised by the same intensity of the disease. The mere branding a person as schizophrenic, therefore, will not suffice for purposes of Section 13(1)(iii).
In Smt. Alka v. Abhinesh,1 it was found that the wife was so cold and frigid and nervous on the first night of marriage as not to be able to co-operate in sexual act. She was found unable to handle domestic appliances. She failed to explain the conduct of urinating in persence of all family members. It was held by the court that in such circumstances wife must be held to be suffering from schizophrenia, and the husband was held to be entitled for nullity of marriage.
In Pramatha Kumar Maithy v. Ashima/ it was held by Calcutta High Court that merely by proving unsoundness of mind, decree of divorce, would not be granted. It has also to be established that unsoundness is to such an extent that it has become impossible for the petitioner to reside together.
The basic requirement that there must be a continuous suffering from disease so as to make it impossible for other side to discharge marital obligations, which were absent.
LEPROSY.—
Before the amendment in 1976 leprosy for one year in a virulent form whether curable or incurable was ground for judicial separation [Section 10 (l)(c) of the Act] and a virulent and incurable form of leprosy for 3 years was ground of divorce [Section 13 (l)(iv) of the Act].)
Earlier, clause (iv) of Section 13(1) provided leprosy as a ground for divorce. However, the Personal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019 has removed it as a ground for divorce.
Prior to passing of the Personal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019, the 20th Law Commission of India in it's 256th Report (Eliminating Discrimination Against Persons Affected by Leprosy) had recommended for removing the discriminatory provision.
It was suggested that due to intensive health-care and availability of modem medicines treatment for the same is available. Therefore, such a provision under various laws was discriminatory.
A similar direction was also given by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Sinha v. Union of India
VENEREAL DISEASE.—
The venereal diseases are such diseases which are communicated by sexual intercourse. Where the respondent has been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form, a decree of divorce will be granted in favour of petitioner. The present section requires that the disease must be in a communicable form. The period of duration has been dispensed with by Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976.
RENUNCIATION OF THE WORLD.—
This clause lays down that a husband or wife can seek dissolution of marriage, by a decree of divorce on the ground that the respondent has renounced the world by entering any religious order.
A person cannot be said to have adopted a religious order by merely declaring himself to belong to such order. He must have performed the requisite ceremonies and formalities of the particular religious order.
A person who wants to renounce the world by becoming a Sanyasi, can be held to have entered that order only if he has performed the necessary rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Shastras.
The mere fact that he calls himself or is described by others as such is not enough, and the mere adoption of the external sysmbols of Sanyasa as the wearing of coloured clothes or shaving of the head is not sufficient to make him a Sanyasi.
The renunciation of the world requires relinquishment of all property and worldly affairs.
Under the Hindu law, according to the Supreme Court, renunciation of worldly affairs followed by entrance into a religious order generally operates as a civil death. It is necessary that all the required ceremonies for entering the religious sect or order are proved satisfactorily (Shitddas Sita Ram, AIR 1954 S.C. 606.)
Where a person has left the world but did not enter into any religious order he can be held guilty of desertion or neglect and a decree of divorce can be obtained against him on that ground. No one can claim to be a Sanyasi merely on account of being a disciple of a Sanyasi. Govind v. Kuldeep. AIR 1971 Del. 157.
