Telangana High Court set aside family court order restraining wife, calling it stigmatic and baseless. Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar held mental disorder finding lacked evidence.
The Telangana High Court recently set aside an order passed by a family court that had restrained a wife on mental disorder ground from approaching her husband during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings holding such a direction to be stigmatic, unreasonable, and legally unsustainable.
The Bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar found that the conclusions drawn by the family court were based on unverified assumptions, particularly concerning the mental health of the wife.
Factual Backgrounds:
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 04.12.2022, and they began living separately from 18.01.2024. According to the husband, the wife has been suffering from a psychic disorder, which he seeks to demonstrate by alleging that she frequently quarreled and behaved in an abnormal manner, including raising her voice in the presence of his family members and domestic staff, thereby causing him embarrassment and humiliation.
It is further alleged that the wife used abusive and offensive language against the husband without any justifiable reason. Owing to her conduct, the husband claims that he became isolated and distressed, and that the couple eventually began residing in separate rooms. Despite these circumstances, the husband asserts that he exercised patience and waited in the hope that the wife would improve her behaviour.
The husband also contends that the wife aggravated the situation by giving interviews on YouTube channels, wherein she allegedly made false statements that tarnished his reputation. Additionally, it is alleged that the wife, along with her family members, came to the matrimonial home and forcibly evicted the husband and his family from their own residence. The husband further states that the wife initiated criminal proceedings against him.
On the basis of these allegations, the Trial Court concluded that there existed a significant threat posed by the wife to the husband’s personal life. The impugned order narrates multiple incidents occurring between August 2022 and November 2024 in considerable and, arguably, unnecessary detail, emphasizing claims of verbal abuse, harassment, and physical cruelty suffered by the husband.
From these circumstances, the Trial Court reached the following conclusion:
‘…There is a gap between the petitioner and respondent due to the acts of the respondent herein, which she has paychiatrie and psychopathic methods, therefore, there is no physical relationship between the petitioner and the respondent…’
The Trial Court further made the following observation:
‘…Therefore, it was established that there is a psychic disorder in the respondent. Therefore, the respondent mother filed DVC. It establishes that there is a hide and seek game was playing by the respondents parents.’
Arguments of Parties:
Learned counsel appearing for the wife contends that the Trial Court committed an error by placing excessive reliance on routine and day-to-day incidents alleged by the husband and, on that basis, concluding that the wife was suffering from a mental disorder. It is further argued that such findings were reached in the absence of any supporting medical evidence.
Counsel also submits that the impugned order runs contrary to the intent and spirit of the order dated 04.11.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 28492 of 2024. Additionally, it is urged that the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate and give due consideration to the evidence presented on behalf of the wife.
ALSO READ: Divorce Laws in India: All Legal Grounds Explained With Supreme Court Judgments
On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the husband emphasizes that the parties cohabited as husband and wife only for a brief period of approximately 13 months. The Senior Counsel refers to certain incidents, including those dated 25.05.2023 and 11.10.2024, to assert that the wife displayed extreme aggression and uncontrolled anger. It is further submitted that the wife vacated the matrimonial home on 06.11.2024 in compliance with the order dated 04.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, and that the dispute between the parties also adversely affected the husband’s family members.
The Senior Counsel submits that the husband’s family members were forced out of their own residence and endured both physical and mental distress as a result of the wife’s conduct. It is also alleged that the wife appeared in interviews on news and television channels with the intention of intimidating the husband and his family. Further, it is pointed out that the wife has filed a counter-claim seeking restitution of conjugal rights. On these grounds, it is contended that the husband has succeeded in establishing a prima facie case, justifying the grant of interim protection during the pendency of the FCOP.
Observations of High Court
The High Court strongly criticised the manner in which the Trial Court had granted relief to the husband, particularly for basing its decision on an unsubstantiated finding that the wife suffers from a “psychiatric” and “psychopathic” disorder.
The Court said,
“Our primary objection is to the Trial Court granting relief to the husband on the basis of the finding that the wife suffers from a ‘psychiatric’ and ‘psychopathic’ disorder. This conclusion is wholly bereft of any evidence, let alone medical evidence. The assumption that the wife suffers from mental disorder can only be arrived at on the basis of medical records and/or expert evidence. The Trial Court appears to have reached this finding solely on the basis of individual incidents which (allegedly) showed that the wife is suffering from anger management issues,”
The Bench also took issue with the terminology employed in the impugned order, noting the potential serious social and personal consequences such language may entail. It cautioned that courts must be careful not to stigmatise a person through observations that are not supported by proper evidence.
The Court said,
“Courts are least equipped to arrive at such findings simply on the basis of daily incidents between warring couples in the absence of any expert medical evidence. The impugned order records that the appellant has a ‘psychic disorder’ without recognizing that the word ‘psychic’ has an entirely different connotation which may not even signify a negative trait. Unfortunately, such words have been loosely used without due regard to the stigmatic repercussions on the appellant,”
Further, the High Court highlighted that the impugned order had the effect of curtailing the wife’s personal liberty without adequate legal basis. It observed that, being passed at an interim stage, the order amounted to prejudging the matter before a full trial.
The Court observed,
“The impugned order suffers from serious infirmities, foremost among which is the automatic assumption that the wife needs to be restrained from going anywhere near the husband on account of behavioural and psychological issues. In effect, the wife has been convicted of the offence and declared guilty even without trial… The impugned order is unilateral, unreasonable and unreasoned.”
In its judgment dated April 24, the Court warned against making broad inferences about a person’s mental health especially in sensitive matrimonial proceedings emphasising that such assumptions may produce long-term effects on an individual’s social standing, career, and personal ties.
It further Said,
“In our view, such radical assumptions should be avoided at all costs since they would have an indelible impact on an individual’s life – affecting not only her personal relationships, but also her social and professional standing. The Trial Court should have refrained from concluding that the husband required to be protected from the wife only by reason of the wife exhibiting such forms of psychiatric behaviour.”
The Bench also recognised the practical difficulties courts face when determining psychological conditions without expert assistance.
“Assessing the mental condition of a party, particularly in a divorce case, is an onerous task for the Court.”
The High Court further clarified that restraining one spouse from approaching the other is an exceptional step and should be resorted to only in rare circumstances backed by compelling evidence. It noted that permitting such an interim order to continue effectively results in a separation in practice, without adjudication on the substantive issues.
Concluding that the family court’s reasoning was insufficient and lacked evidentiary support, the High Court set aside the impugned order and removed all restrictions imposed on the wife during the pendency of the proceedings.
In the matter, Advocate S. Nagesh Reddy appeared on behalf of the wife, while Avinash Desai, Senior Advocate, along with Advocate P. Vishweswara Nikhil, represented the husband.
Case Title: X Vs Y
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE