What is the meaning of “an idiot” ?
In section 5(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) and how to determine whether a person is such an idito on the medical and other evidence in this case-are the two important questions for decision in this appeal by the husband whose petition under section 12(1)(b) of the Act for a decree of nullity against the respondent wife has been dismissed by the learned lower Court on the ground that the husband has failed to prove that wife, at the time of the marriage, was “an idiot”.
(2) The two provisions of the Act to be considered are : Section 5(ii) :
“Amarriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfillled, namely :
(II)neither party is an idito or a lunatic at the time of the marriage.”
AND section 12(1) (b) :
12.(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely :
(a)..
(B)That the marriage is in contravention of the condition sepeified in clause (ii) of section 5.”
(3) The key to the interpretation of Sections 5(ii) and 12(1)(b) will be found in the long title of the Act which is as follows : “ANAct to amend and codify the law relating to marriage among Hindus”.
(4) The Act thus partly embodies the existing Hindu Law and partly amends it. In 1955, the Legislature, therefore, in making this Act, drew upon two distinct sources, namely :
(A)the then existing Hindu Law and
(B)the English Common Law as modified by statutes.
(5) The concept of idiocy and/or lunacy as a ground of incapacity was nto unknown to Hindu Law. Idiocy was a ground of disqualification of a person from inheritance. In R. Muthammal v. S. Devasthanam (1) paragraphs 9 and 10, one Ramasami Pillai was held to be insane being a “gloomy and sickly person with a vacant look” and unable to answer “even the simple question about his name. On the evidence, the attempted distinction between a lunatic and a person of week intellect could nto be sustained in that case. The Supreme Court apparently based its finding of lunacy on the complete loss of reason and intellect.
(6) Persons of unsound mind, i.e. idiots and lunatics, though disqualified for civil purposes generally, were nto declared incompetant to marry under the ancident Hindu Law. But such marriages were reprehensible. The late Sir Gurudas Banerjee in his Tagore Law Lectures on Marriage and Stridhan, therefore, expressed the view that “an idito and a lunatic being, where the loss of reason is complete, incompetent to accept the gift of the bride which is a necessary part of the ceremony of marriage, it is nto easy to understand how their marriage in such cases can be regarded as marriage at all”. (Fifth Edition, page 41). In Mouji Lal v. Chandrabati Kumari (2), the Privy Council did nto consider the question whether unsoundness of mind could in any circumstances, invalidate a Hindu marriage. Acting, however, on the hypothesis that it might, they pointed out that the degree of unsoundness would always have to be considered and in the particular cases berore them the man whose marriage was in question was nto so insane that he could nto understand the ceremonies of the marriage and, therefore, that particular marriage was nto invalid. The observations of the Privy Council were followed and Gurudas Banerjee’s view cited above was approved by the Federal Court in R. N. Singh v. Bhagwati Saran Singh (3) paragraphs 94 and 153 to 155. The following observation of B. K. Mukherjee J. is particularly instructive : “THEREare undoubtedly various degrees of insanity and the fact that a man has been adjudicated a lunatic may mean and imply that he is nto competent to manage his own affairs, but it does nto necessarily show that he suffers from complete mental aberration. He may have sufficient amount of reason still left in him which would enable him to understand the ceremonies of marriage”.
(7) There is a presumption that the Legislature does nto intend to change the law unless a statute clearly says so. It would be fair, therefore, to conclude that the words “idiot” and “lunatic” in section 5(ii) of the Act were used to indicate the total loss of reason or the last degree of mental disorder which alone would incapacitate a person from marriage inasmuch as this was the state of Hindu Law in 1955 when the Act came on the statute book.
(8) The concept of nullity of marriage was unknown to Hindu Law before the amendment made by sections 11 and 12 read with section 5 of the Act. Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, however, already existed on the Indian statute book outside the Hindu Law. It was in pari materia to sections 11 and 12 read (9) In its turn section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, derived the meaning of the word “idiot” from the English Common Law on which it was based. As shown by section 22 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, the’ Courts were to give relief of nullity of marriage on the same principles and rules on which the Ecclesiastical Court had done so before. Historically and prior to the Reformation, marriage in England was also regarded by the Church as a sacrament which could nto be dissolved by a decree of divorce avinculo mafrimonii. This doctrine of indissolubility came to be evaded in course of time by the evolution of decree annulling the marriage on the ground that due to the lack of certain essential conditions, the marriage itself could nto be validly performed. One such condition was the mental capacity of a party to the marriage. When a party was unable to consent to the marriage because of mental incapacity, there could be no marriage at all and the marriage which might have been gone through was void ipso jure. In Durham (5) , Sir James Hannen (President) said that the contract of marriage is a very simple one which does nto require a high degree of intelligence to comprehend.” In Marrod v. Harrod (6) a dumb and deaf lady of extremely dull intellect who could nto comprehend anything, could nto read or write, was never allowed to leave her home alone and Was unable to tell the value of money or how to give change, was still held to be capable of marriage. In Park v. Park (7) upheld in appeal in 1954 Probate Division 112, the marriage of a 78 year old man was held to be vaild though his mind had been found to be impaired after a stroke and hardening of the arteries and was incapable of full recovery, but was capable of understanding what marriage was.
(10) The definition of “an idiot” given in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Third Edition, Volume 2, page 1357, based on old decisions is as follows :
“IDIOT”is he that is a focl natural from his birth, and knoweth nto how to account or number twenty pence, or cannto name his father or mother, nor of what age himself is, or such like easie and common matters”.
“IDIOTS”were defined in the Menial Deficiency Act, 1913 as “persons so defective in mind from birth or from an early age as to be unabie to guard themselves against common physical dangers”. Under the Marriage of Lunatics Act, 1811, a person who has been found to be of insane mind by inquisition was disqualified from marriage. But a person nto so found by inquisition was nto disqualified if at the time of the marriage he or she was capable of understanding the nature of the contract and the duties and responsibilities thereby created, and was free from the influence of insane delusions on the subject. (19, Halsbury’s Laws of England 780, para 1250, Rayden on Divorce, Tenth Edition 101 and Tolstoy on the law and Practice of Divorce, Fifth Edition 109).
