"The concept of unsoundness of mind under the personal law is broader than the unsoundness of mind in case of a criminal law." Analyse the scope of the soundness of mind under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in the light of above statement, with the help of relevant case laws.

Question: "The concept of unsoundness of mind under the personal law is broader than the unsoundness of mind in case of a criminal law." Analyse the scope of the soundness of mind under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in the light of above statement, with the help of relevant case laws. [Punj JS 2019]

Find the question and answer of Hindu Law only on Legal Bites. ["The concept of unsoundness of mind under the personal law is broader than the unsoundness of mind in case of a criminal law." Analyse the scope of the soundness of mind under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in the light of above statement, with the help of relevant case laws.]

Answer

Different laws' contradictory approaches to including and providing for people with impaired capacity and their interactions are reflected in various provisions, which in turn reflect the various criteria used to determine legal capacity under various sections of the law. Through case law or judicial precedents, some of the ambiguity regarding the standards that must be used in evaluating decision-making and legal competence has been resolved. The issue of capacity has been addressed in some detail by Indian courts, which have established standards for determining capacity, thresholds for the exercise of decision-making capacity under specific circumstances, and the applicability of various legal provisions relating to both decision-making and legal capacity.

Hindu Law -The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Under the Hindu Marriage Act ('HMA'), a marriage cannot take place where either party's capacity is impaired to prevent them from giving valid consent to the marriage, living with their spouse, or procreating (Section 5, HMA). The provision is expressed using the terms – "unsound mind", "mental disorder", "unfit" for marriage or procreation, and "recurrent attacks of insanity". However, soundness of mind is not defined in the Act. Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 lays down conditions for a valid Hindu marriage. The second condition of this provision provides three parameters, one of which should be possessed by neither of the parties at the time of their marriage. They are:

1. Parties being restricted by unsoundness of mind to provide valid consent; or

2. Parties are capable of providing valid consent but are suffering from mental disorders which can prohibit them from living a healthy married life, and affect children's procreation; or

3. Parties are subjected to frequent insanity attacks.

Moreover, this law also provides for divorce on the ground of "unsoundness" of mind, without defining the term, although the terms mental disorder and psychopathic disorder are explained (Section 27, Special Marriage Act; Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act). Under this Act, a marriage between two parties can be solemnised only if neither party "has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children", even though they may be capable of giving "valid consent" (Section 4, Special Marriage Act; Section 5, Hindu Marriage Act ). This position is rather anomalous and leads to the dubious outcome where the Acts, despite recognising that some persons with a 'mental disorder' may be capable of giving valid consent, fail to elucidate the facets of such capacity and to explain the rationale to be applied in determining 'fitness' for decision-making regarding marriage.

Observation by the Supreme Court in the case of R. Lakshmi Narayan v. Santhi, [Appeal (civil) 5028 of 1999], provides some light hope as it stated that to label a wife as unfit for a valid Hindu marriage on grounds of mental disability and reproducing children, establishing the gravity of the ailment she has been suffering from which makes it impossible for to live normally, stands indispensable.

Criminal Law -The Indian Penal Code

The defence of insanity in Criminal law took a definite shape with the famous case of M'Naghten wherein some propositions were laid down which were called 'the M' Naghten Rules'. It laid down that:

1. Every man is presumed to be sane until the contrary is proved.

2. For the defence of insanity to succeed it must be proved that the accused was under a delusion so as not to know the nature of the act he did and if he knew the act then he did not know the act to be wrong.

3. A medical witness who has not seen the accused before trial should not be asked on the evidence whether he thought the accused to be insane

The Indian law on the defence of insanity is embodied in Section 84 Indian Penal Code. In Section 84 the term used is 'Unsoundness of mind' and not 'insanity' because the scope of the word 'unsoundness of mind' is broader than the word 'insanity'. Any kind of mental derangement is unsoundness of mind, but the same may not be insanity always. However, the term 'unsoundness of mind' is not defined in the IPC. But it is equivalent to the old legal term ' non-compos mentis' and includes the following category of persons- an idiot, one made non-compos by illness, a lunatic or a madman and one who is drunk. The crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind must exist is at the time of the commission of the offence. This is a question of fact and has to be decided by the court on a case basis.

In Sheralli Wali Mohd v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1972 SC 2443),  the Apex Court held that to establish that acts done are not offences under Section 84 of the IPC it must be proved clearly, that at the time of the commission of the act the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act because of unsoundness of mind.

To get the benefit of Section 84 the cognitive faculties of the mind must be so impaired that the accused becomes incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to the law. In the case of Laxmi v. State, (AIR 1959 All 534), the accused a drug addict was convicted for the murder of his stepbrother. He assaulted his step-brother and then fled the spot. The court held him guilty and not entitled to the benefit under section 84 as he knew the nature of his act as evident from his fleeing the spot to evade arrest.

Thus, from the above discussion, it can conclude that the concept of unsoundness of mind under personal law is broader than the unsoundness of mind in the case of criminal law.

Hindu Law – Notes, Case Laws, And Study Material

Test Series for Competitions