Pathare Soumitra, Nardodkar Renuka, Shields Laura, Bunders Joske F G, Sagade Jaya
Coordinator Centre for Mental Health Law and Policy, Indian Law Society, Pune India.
Research Associate Centre for Mental Law and Policy, Indian Law Society, Pune India.
Indian J Med Ethics. 2015 Jan-Mar;12(1):7-13. doi: 10.20529/IJME.2015.003. Epub 2014 Dec 10.
Section 5(ii) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) states that under certain circumstances, mental illness is accepted as a ground for the annulment of marriage, while Section 13(1) (iii) states that mental illness is a ground for divorce. There is little data on how this provision is used and applied in matrimonial petitions. This paper assesses judicial practices in divorce cases, exploring the extent to which gender and the diagnosis of mental illness affect the decision to grant annulment or divorce.
The paper analyses judgments related to annulment and divorce at the Family Court in Pune and at the High Courts in India.
In the Family Court at Pune, 85% of the cases were filed by husbands, who alleged that their spouse was mentally ill. Medical evidence of mental illness was presented in only 36% of the cases and in many cases, divorce/nullity was granted even in the absence of medical evidence. In 14% of the cases, nullity/divorce was granted even when both spouses were not present. Of the Family Court cases reaching the High Court, 95% were filed by male petitioners. The High Courts reversed the lower courts' judgments in 50% of the cases.
Our analysis highlights the need for standardised guidelines for lower courts on what constitutes adequate medical proof of mental illness when hearing a petition related to nullity or divorce under HMA. It also provides a critical review of Section 5(ii) of HMA.
1955年《印度教婚姻法》(HMA)第5(ii)条规定,在某些情况下,精神疾病被视为婚姻无效的理由,而第13(1)(iii)条规定,精神疾病是离婚的理由。关于这一规定在婚姻诉讼中的使用和应用情况,几乎没有相关数据。本文评估了离婚案件中的司法实践,探讨性别和精神疾病诊断在多大程度上影响给予婚姻无效或离婚判决的决定。
本文分析了浦那家庭法院和印度高等法院与婚姻无效和离婚相关的判决。
在浦那家庭法院,85%的案件由丈夫提起,他们声称自己的配偶患有精神疾病。只有36%的案件提交了精神疾病的医学证据,而且在许多案件中,即使没有医学证据也批准了离婚/婚姻无效。在14%的案件中,即使双方配偶均未到庭,也批准了婚姻无效/离婚。在上诉至高等法院的家庭法院案件中,95%是由男性请愿人提起的。高等法院在50%的案件中推翻了下级法院的判决。
我们的分析强调,在根据《印度教婚姻法》审理与婚姻无效或离婚相关的请愿时,下级法院需要就什么构成精神疾病的充分医学证据制定标准化指南。它还对《印度教婚姻法》第5(ii)条进行了批判性审视。