In a notable decision, the Bombay High Court has determined that it is not permissible to file for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the basis that one's spouse is afflicted with epilepsy.

A panel consisting of Justices Vinay Joshi and Valmiki SA Menezes expressed this view as they upheld a 2016 family court decision. In that ruling, the court had rejected a man's request for a divorce. The man had argued that his wife had epilepsy, which he described as an incurable ailment that had caused her to become mentally unstable.

The husband had claimed that his wife's epilepsy had resulted in her displaying unusual behavior and even making threats of self-harm, all of which contributed to the deterioration of their marital relationship.

Nevertheless, the High Court was not persuaded by these accusations.

The judges held that "epilepsy" cannot be regarded as an incurable ailment, a mental disorder, or a psychopathic disorder, making it an unsuitable basis for invoking Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

In this context, the panel referenced and endorsed the remarks made by a single judge in the case of Raghunath Gopal Daftardar vs. Vijaya Raghunath Daftardar. While acknowledging that it was not an identical case, the division bench believed that the reasoning applied in that case was relevant to the current situation.

The bench also expressed the view that there is a substantial body of medical evidence suggesting that a medical condition like epilepsy should not be considered a hindrance to spouses living together.

The bench held, “On that count, we hold that the husband has failed to prove that the wife was suffering from epilepsy or even that, if she were suffering from such a condition, the same could be considered as a ground under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act for claiming a decree of dissolution of marriage.”

The Court determined that, according to a neurologist who had treated the wife, she had experienced a brain seizure but did not have epilepsy.

The bench further added that the second important point, as testified by an expert in neurology, was that epilepsy itself is a medical condition in which an individual can maintain a regular and healthy life. Therefore, even if it were assumed that the wife had epilepsy, it could not be categorized as a mental disorder, a psychopathic disorder, or an incurable condition that rendered her of unsound mind.

As the husband failed to substantiate his claim that his wife was suffering from epilepsy, the Court concluded that there was no foundation to support the argument that he had endured cruelty or mental distress as a result of his wife's alleged condition.

The judges also dismissed the husband's argument that his wife had written a letter threatening to commit suicide as a result of her "abnormal" behavior.

The Court determined that the wife had provided a valid explanation in her testimony, stating that she had written the letter solely because her husband had compelled her to do so and had threatened to evict her from their marital residence.

The Court emphasized that the wife provided a detailed account in her testimony, clarifying the circumstances under which she had composed the note. She had done so under significant duress from her husband, fearing eviction from their marital residence. On the day in question, she had been inebriated and her husband had threatened to eject her from their home. Fearing homelessness and for the welfare of her infant daughter, who was only one year old at the time, she had written the note according to her husband's instructions.