Swarajya Lakshmi v. G. G. Rao

07 A SW ARAJYA LAKSHMI _\1,_ G. G. PADMA RAO _October_ 19, 1973 [K. K. MATHEW, M. H. BEG AND A. K. MUKHE.RJEA, JJ.J ### n ### c D E F _Tlind11_ _Marriage_ _Act_ (2~ _of_ 1955), _s._ _!3U)(iv)-Yirulent_ _and_ _i11r.urable_ _form_ _of ltpro:r)',_ _wlrnt_ _is--Relevancy_ _of_ _motives_ _of spouses_ _of_ _their_ _parents._ The appellant was suffering from the Jeproma~ous form Qf leprosy, Md the respondent, her husband, filed a petition under s. 13 (1) (iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act, _.J9SS,_ for the dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the appellant had, for a ]lfriod of not less than 3 years immediatcly preceding the presentation of the petition, been suffering from a _virulent_ _(lnd (ncurable_ form of leprosy. The .Hish Court, in appeal, arantr.d the decree. Dismissing the appeal to thi.! Court, HELD : The form leprosy from which the appellant was suJfcrin~t was both virulent and incurable and it was a ftt case for granting the Jecree. [lOSE-F) · ( 1 ) The term virulent is not a medical term. The decisions of the Privy Council and the different High Courts m India wh~re the word virulent' had been used for interpreting the Hindu Law on the subject of exclusion from inheritance have used it to describe leprosy of the most serious aDd aggravated type. The emphasis in the Hindu rcl1gious and legal texts was on the compc· tencc of a man to perform his social and religious obligatiops. No word had been used in those texts which coull\ be referred to as the c:onespondiq Sanskrit word for 'virulent'. Therefore, those decisions do not give any sure and reliable guiuancc for interpreting the word 'virulent' in the iection. (IOOE·, _Railgcry_vrt_ _Clletti_ v. _TflilnikacluJlla_ _Mudali_ _&._ _Ors •._ J.L.R. 19 Mnd. 74. _A1111nta_ v. _Ramabai._ J.L.R. 1 Born. _554._ _Ramaf>ai._ v. _llamabai,_ J.l..R. ~8' Bom. 363, (P.C.) Knyar~lla _Pnthan_ v. _Subbnraya_ _Tl1avan,_ LL.R. 38 Mad. 250, _Karali_ _Char(l!J_ _Pfll_ v, _Asltutosh_ _Nandi,_ I.L.R. SO Cal. 604, referred to. (2) 'Virulent' according to the dictionary means 'malignant and infectious'. Almost oil medical authorities rec'lgnise lepromatous leprOlly as malignant and contagious. [102B.C] (3) (a) The disense can also be described as an incurable form of leprosy. Sulpbone treatment which bas made undoubtedly a great advance on the previous methods of .treatment of leprosy does not guarantee complete cure. There IOIE·Fl are abo other efficacious drugs but even so, experts do not yet consider that, with all the advances in physiotherapy,. surgery or orthopaedic ~urgery, it is possible either to cure the disease completely or to correct the ·deformities and mutilations that are often produced by the disease. [105A-B, C-E). (b) Further, sulphone drugs were discovered about 1941 and _the_ Legislature must be presumed to have known about their effect on leprosy when the Hindu G Marriage Act, 1955, was p!IS:Ied. If it be true that all types of leprosy are curable by sulpbone drugs the legislature would not have provided for the grant of divorce on the ground of _ilacurr.,bit_ leprosy. [lOSB..CJ _(_ 4) It i~ true that the social approach to leprosy should b! that one should' take a very humane and balanced outlook and accept leprosy as simply another disorder that requires medical attention. But that does not provid" anv justification for compelling a husband to live with a wife who is suffering from an: a~t~ravated form of jeprosv and who can communicate it to him and his children H almost any lltOment in their dailv life even though the legislature bv statute hu rjven the husband a way of relief. The only consideration bein!l the welfare of. the spouses and _ol_ the children, if :my, of the marring", the court cannot take into account while deciding the question the motives of the soou~es for applying for divorce or cf their parents in arranging the marri<•ge. [106A·B. C-EJ 8-L447SCr'/74. 98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974 ) 2 S.C.lt. CIVIL APPELATt:: JURISDICTION : Civil A~l No, 2248 of 1970 Appeal by special leave from the judgement and Order dated the 2nd July, 1969, of the Andhra Pr.adesh High Court at Hyderabad in appeal against order No. 224 of 1966. _Y._ _S._ _Chitle,_ _K._ _Rajendra_ _Choudhury_ and _Vtena Devi,_ for the appellant. _R. Vas.udev_ _Pillai_ and _P._ _Kesava_ _Pillai,_ for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by # " B MUICHERJEA, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed agairist the judgment and order da£ect July 22, 1 ':169 of the High Court of ### Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in conne~tion with a peti- c tion filed by respondent Dr. G. G. P~ma Rao a~nst the .appellant Swarajya La.kshmi under Sec. 13( 1 )(1v) of the Hmdu Marnage Act, 1955 for the dissolution of the marriage between them by a decree of divorce on the ground that the appellant had for a period of not less than three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition been suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy. The appellant and the respondent were married on June 17, 1963. D The appellant was then 20 and the respondent, her husband, was 28 years of age. The appellant, we are told, was taken away by her parents to New Delhi on,ly two days after the marriage. She re turned to Hyderabad to live with her husband only towards the end of August 1963. Almost immediately thereafter jn tbe month of Sep. tember her husband discovered that she was suffering both from Leprosy and Tuberculosis. He bein~ a doctor started treating Lhc E wife immediately. Not content with his own treatment he consulted also two experts namely Dr. C. V. Ethiraju:u and Dr. Shanti Narayan Mathur. At one point of time the responder\t-scriously contemplated admitting the appellant to a leper home, but the appellant was taken away by her father to New Delhi in May 1964 as she was then expecting a child. On June 4, 1965 the respondent filed a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the said F Act) for dissolution of his marriage with the appeJJant. At the time of presenting this petition he made an application under Sec. 14(1) of the said Act before the City Civil Court at Hyderab 1d for permission to present the petition reforc three vears had elapsed from the date of the marriage on the ground that the case was one of exceptional hardship to the respondent. The permission was -granted and the petition was thereafter heard on evidence. On February 22, 1966 G the Second A~?itional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad who he.ard the t>et~hon passed an order by which he held (a) that SwJ· _.:_ . ra1ya .Lakshmt, the appellant, had been suffering from an incurable and vtr:ulent form ?f leprosy for a period not less than three years lmmedtfl!ely precedmg the presentation of the netition: but (b) that ~e petitiOn was premature on the ground that the parties to the peti#### tiOn had not been hu~~and and ~ife for a p;rio~ of three years. The u learned Second Additional Chtef Judge disrrussed the ~tition on these findin~. 'fhe respondent thereupon went on appeal 'to the High Court of Andhra Prade~h. A Division Bench heard that appeal. A 8 ### c G H S. LAKSHMI _v._ G. G. RAO _(Mukherjea,_ J.) 99 By an order dated July 22, 1969 the Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the court below and granted a decree for divorce in favC1Ur of the respondent under Sec. 13(l),(iv) of the said Act. From this judgment, appellant Swarajya Lakshmi has now come by special leave on appeal to this Court. The main controversy between the parties before us turned round the question: Was the leprosy of Swarajya Lakshmi of an incurable and virulent form? Both parties seem to be agreed that Swarajya Lakshmi was suffering from the lepromatous form of leprosy. The respondent contends that this was an incurable and virulent form of leprosy while it was contended on hehalf of th~ appellant that the leprosy she was suffering from was curable and in fact she was on the way to recovery when the petition for disolution of marriage was presented. Both the conte~t· ing parties examined doctors in support of their respective conteu-. tions. The doctors agreed that "virulent" is not really a medical term. Apart from this the medical evidence on record is not very helpful in the sense that they cancel each other. But leprosy is such a wellknown disease and there are such well-known medical experts on this subject who have recorded their views in print in a fairly convinc· ing manner, that it is not impossible to come to a conclusion regarding the question w·hether the appellant's leprosy was of the incurable and virulent type. Before considering the medical authorities on the subject we -should consider the scope and intent of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act under which leprosy m1y sometimes be a good ground of divorce. Sec. 13 (1) of the said Act is in the following terms : "13. (1) Any marriage solcmnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissq1ved by a ·decree of divorce on the ground that the other party (i) ......... . (li) #### (iii) ......... ' .. (iv) has, for a period of not less than three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition,., ., been suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy; or I .. < O 6 O 0 O 0 0 I .. - - 0 0. - 0 0 0 0 - 0 - '.1 0 I I " In construing these provisions one has to remember that divorce is not generally favoured or encouraged by courts and is permitt* only for very serious and grave reasons. This will become obvious if we compare the provisions set out above with the corresoon<i:ng provisions for judicial separation. Sec. 10 of the Hindu Marria~ Act permits judicial separation on ~ound of leprosy but the condi~ tions are far lm stringent. Sec. 1 0( 1) of the said Act runs as follows: "10. (I) Either party to a marriage, whether solcmniz·ed before or after the commencement of thi<> Act, may 100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS _[_ 1974 J 2 S.C.R. ' present a petition to the district court praying for a d~cre~ ior judicial separatio:t on the ground that the other party (a) ............. . (b) ............. . (c) has, for a period of not less t:Jan one yl!ar imml! diately preceding the prcs::ntatioa of the petition, be:!n suff~ring from a virulent form of lcp:osy; or " It is s;gnificant that judicial separation is allowed if other party ·to a marriage has b~cn suffering from a _virulent_ form of leprosy for a period of at least one year before the pesentation of the petition. In order, however, to be entitled to a decree of divorce a party has to prove that his spouse ha~ been suffering from a form of leprosy which is not only virul~nt but also incurable and further that the spouse concerned hac; been suffering from this ailment for a period of at least three years before the presentation of the petition. Clearly, enough, the conditions under which divorce is to be allowed are far more strinc,~nt than the conditi.ons under which judicial separation may be granted. Both parties agree that "virulent" iu this context is not a medical term. Indeed, the medical evidence on record also makes the same assertion. What, then, is the me:lrlillg of the word 'virulent'? A suggestion was made to us that the word 'virulent' is a relic of those decisions in Hindu law which speak of leprosy as a disqualification entailing forfeiture of pro!>crty rights of the person afflicted by that disease when "it appears in a virulent and aggravated form". We were asked to give the same meaning to this word in the present context as h,ld b~cn given in these Hindu Law decisions. In Ran~. _goyya_ _Chetti_ v. _Tlwnikaclralla_ _Mud1r!i_ _&_ _Ors._ ( 1) the learned Judgci of the Madras High Court scents to have trcatcJ the word 'virulent' as descriptive of the disease when it spre.:Ids quickly and extensively ov.::r the patient's body. Dealing with leprosy in the same context as furnishing a ground for c:-~:clusion from inheritance the Bombay High Court in _Ananta_ v. _RamlJb:;i(")_ says that ''the leprosy to disqualify must be of the sanious or ulcerous kind, which WJS, we th:nk the virulent or aggravated type of leprosy .... ". This meaning is given by the learned Judge on the basis of the ancient Hindu autho~ ritics as interpreted by the Bombay anu Madras High Ccurts in cer~ tain cases. ln the case of _Ramabai_ v. _Harnabai_ the Privy Co-.Jncil while d.!aJing with the issue· as to wh::-thcr a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara W;.t,S cxclud.ed by reason of leprosy fro:n the position of a joint owner of property of his joint family on the ground of leprosy ltcld that if the disca~e is of a type which is not very appo.rcnt except to minut.! iaspcctioa _k_ would not exclude the person concerned from performing his social and religious duties in co:nbinatio:t with others and would not therefore be a disqualification. Th;o Privy Council A ### _c_ E r G H (I) l.l.R. _19_ ~1ad. 7-t (2) LL.R. 1 R<'n. 554. (3) ·J.L.R. 48 non. ~fJ. '\ S. LAKSllMI _V._ G.G. RAO _(Mukl!erjea, ].)_ 101 ... A cites with approval the following observation of Benson and Sundara Ayyal' JJ. in _Kayarchana_ _Pathan_ v. _Subbaraya 1'hevan_ :(1) "Defor mity and unfitness for social intercourse arising from the virulent and disgusting nature of the disease would appear to b~ what has been accepted in both the texts and -the decisions as. the most satisfactory test". From this it is not di1licult to infer that according to the learned Judges any leprosy that led to deformity and unfitness for .;l social inteicourse could be considered virulent. In _Karali_ Clz~rall _Pal_ v. _Ashu:osh Nandi(Z)_ the Calcutta Hig;1 Cou~t in considering the question as to when leprosy under the Hindu law would be a ground of exdu~ion from inheritance held that it must be of th0 sanious or ulcerous and not of tl~e anaesthetic type. It was contended on behalf of the appdlant that we should follow. ·C these decisions in interpreting the word 'viru~ent' in connection with leprosy. We cannot, however, agree to accept th1s sugg~stion. 'Virulence' as a ground for exclusion from inheritance is treated from an entirely different angle in the Hindu religious and legal texts. The general emphasis in those contexts was of the competence of a mau to perform his social and religious obligations and no word has been used in those texts which could be referred to as the corresponding 0 Sanskrit word ·for 'virulent'. The decisions of the different High ·Courts and the Privy Council where the word 'virulent' has been used for interpreting the Hindu law on the subject have used it to describe the leprosy of the most serious and aggravated type. This does not therefore give any sure .and reliable guide in interpreting the word 'virulent'. Since the word is not used by medical experts in describ.. ing any particular type of leprosy we have to find the meaning of the i~ word. from the dictionaries .. F #### n The meaning of the word 'virulent' appears in different dictionaries in the foiJowing manner: _Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary:_ Virulent : highl.Y poisonous or malignant: venomous: acri moruous. _Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary:_ Virulent: 1. a: marked by a rapld, severe, and malignant sence o£ corrupt. ~r pois<l!\~us maq.r,: .. b: _Oi_ diseases, e~c.: Extremely malfsnam: or vi~ lent. course. b: able to overcome bodily defensive mecha-· nisms; 2. extremely poisonous or. venomous: noxious~ 3. ·full of malice : malignant; 4. objcctlonab!y harsh or strong, _T/ic Shorter Oxford_ _English_ _Dictionary·:_ Viru [1] ent : 1. a : Of woun1s or ulcers.: cra~actcrised by.the pre (2) T.L.R. ~0 C!. (f.4. 102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 1974) 2 S.C.R. 2. Of serpents, material substances, plants, etc.: Pos~ A' sessing venomous or strongly potsonous qualities; extremely noxious. 3. Violently bitter, spiteful or malignant; full of acri mony or enmity' 'Virulent' therefore according to the dictionary meaning stands for malignant and infectious. . n. We shaH now proceed to consider whether lepromatous leprosy which is the type from which the appellant admittedly suffers is 'virulent', That lepromatous leprosy is malignant and contagious seems to 'be recognised by almost aU medical authorities. We append . below some of the observations of the medical authorities on this aspect of the lepromatous type of leprosy.,. I. PRACTICE OF DERMATOLOGY by Dr. P. N. Behl (2nd Edition) _At pa£e_ 232: Leprosy is apchronic, infectious disease caused _rium_ _leprae._ _At_ _pages_ 232-233 : D Prolonged and close contact is ideal for its transmission. Transmission by short and intimate contacts has also been reported.. K - Exposures to lepromatous cases results in 4 to 11 times more effective transmission as compared with exposures to nonlepromatous ·cases. _At_ _page_ 236: LEPROMATOUS LEPROSY (L). In this type, the patient bas low resistance and _Mycobacterium_ lcprae multiply in atmnomical numbers. _At_ _page_ 244: The lepromatous form is malignant and contagious; there is no• tendency to self-arrest or regression. 11 II. LEPROSY IN THEORY AND PRACTICE (~. by R. C. Cochrane and T. Frank Davey (2nd Edition) ##### .. _At_ _page_ 222: ..., AU clinical evidence goes to show that it is only the ~n · )11 cases of leprosy with positive skin and/ or nasal mucosal bios1es, that are infective, and particularl_y the lep~omat?us fo~ which contains the largest numbers of mxcro-orgamsms,m the skm. / A B ### c _D_ E F G H S. LAKSIJMi _V._ G. G. RAO _(Mto!{herjea,_ J.) 1 03 _At_ _page_ 76: Based on the numbe.r of IJlultiplc-case families, one must con clude that leprosy is as contagious or more contagious than is poliomyelities. . . . . .it would be advisable to state simply that leprosy is contagious and omit any reference to the degree of communicability until more factual information is available. _At_ _page_ 490: LEPRO~TOUS LEPROSY.-This is the type r.een in persons with a negligible resistance, and leprosy bacilli are widely disce'llinated throughout the skin, nerves and reticulo-endothelial system. _At paf(e_ 505: PROGNOSIS.-Leprosy may sometimes be a slight passing ailment, or may become the most repulsive loath~ some disease known to man. The two important factors are concentration and distribution of bacilli in the body and resistance. Prognosis is more favourable in the tuberculoid than in the lepromatous type. and prognosis in 1he indeterminate and dimorphous groups is intermediate between these two. THE DANGER OF CONTACT.-The factors which predispose to the danger of contact are closeness and duration, the .infectivity of the case, combined with the age and general health of the person exposed to contagion. IV. NOTES ON LEPROSY by Dharmendra (Second Edition) _At_ _pa,lle_ 29: LEPROMATOUS LEPROSY: This is the severe malign form of th~ - di~"Me seen .in persons with little or no resistance to infection. We shall now deal with the next and also the more important question as to whether leprom~t"u~ lenr~y is inc·tr ble. The,.,edic1l witnesses in this case have given their views on this subject. We haw already stated· why we prefer the views of the more well-known experts of leprosy as we find them in authoritative books on leproq. III. MANSON'S TROPICAL DISEASES by Sir Philip H. Manson-Bahr (Sixteenth Ed.) 104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974] 2 S.C.R. 1. MANSON'S TROPICAL DISEASES by Sir Philip H. M:1n~on-Bahr (Sixteenth Edition) _At pnge_ 506 : In the lepromatous type one should speak of arrest rather than cure, and it may take 3-15 years to rid the skin of bacilli; sulphoncs should then be continued at half the maximal dosage for life. 2. PRICE'S TEXT-BOOK 0;-.' THE PRACriCE _OF_ MEDIClNE A B ### c D E F by Donald Hunter (Ninth Edition) _At_ _page_ 93: \ Sulphone treatment must be continued for months, if possible for some years. Some authorities believe it should go on at intervals for life. It is not yet possible to say whether cure results from sulphone therapy. Patients should be free from _Myco. leproe_ for at least two years before discharge; even then it is not possible to say whether the condition is really cured or merely arrested, for leprosy is notoriously a disease of remissions. 3. DISEASE OF Tiffi SKIN by Richard L. Sutton (Eleventh Edition) _At_ _page_ 364: PROGNOSIS. It could appear that no case of leprosy recov ~rs spontaneously or as a result of treatment. 4. LEPROSY IN THEORY AND PRACTICE by R. K. Cochrane ?11~ T. FraPk Dw~y (2nd Edition) _At_ _page_ 355: Although the prognosis of patients on sulpbonc therapy is undoubtedly good, a permanent cure cannot be certain (; in any particular case and it may be necessary, as a precaution, for the patient to take the drug for the rest of his Jife. The failure~ th'lt do occl!r with sulphone ~eat•nent are usually due to relapses after cessation of trtatment or to exacerbations during treatment. Considerable emphasis was laid at the time of arguments by ·the H appellant's counsel on the great advances made by sulphone treat ment. It was contended thc,t su [1] phone treatment hos been so revolutional)· that leprosy should not any longer be considered to be an A 1>. S, LAKSHMI _v._ G. G. RAO _(Mukherjea,_ /.) 105 incurable disease. Our study of the various authorities on the subject does not support this view. lt is true that su1pttG11e is u uvuu e ... ly ·a great advance on the previous methods of treatment of leprosy but even sulphone does not guarantee complete cure. All authorities agree that the sequelae remain even after the most prolonged treatment wtth sulpnone drugs. Bes1des, it is to be rememoered taat SuLphJne drugs were discovered about 1941 and thev were very wel-kn "lwn all over the world at the time when the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was passed. The. legislators must be presumed to have known· the effect of sulphones on leprosy. If it be true that sui phone drugs have made leprosy of all types curable there would be no point in the legislature making a provision in the Hindu· Marriage Act which will entitle a spouse to a decree ·of divorce if the other party to the marriage would be found sufferin2 fro~ in~urable leprosy. In this vi.e~ of the matter in our opinion the disease from which the app~llant suffers can be described as an incurable form o. leprosy. It is likely that with the future .advances -in the treatment of leprosy one day even this form, o( leprcsy wJt be .amenable to cure. We mly, in this connec;tica mention that even -after the sulphone theraj)y a drug known as CIBA-1906 was found out which in preliminary stages appears to be equal in efficacy· to the sulphones but far less toxic. Ever). so c.xperts do not. yet cons'der .that with all the adv~nces in. p(ly~lotherapV., ·surgery,or. or~bqpaedic sur~ery it is poss~~le e_itber .to cure the disease completely or .. to correct the defornuhes and ,mutilations that .are often _pr~e4 by the disease •. All that the text boob . se¢ni ·.to suggest is .this . that. ';eradication· of the disease can • . a® _.e.ventJld{ly_ Mil, ·,occur thr~ugh ~tfective treatment of the individual patkn~· .an~,segrega:ion to prevent. dissemip.ation of. the disease." In view. ·of our findings that .the form of leprosy from which the appellant suffers was both virulent and .incurable, we have come to ##### th~ . sad .. but driavoidable conclusion· that this is a fit case in . wb~ -~~e ·~esp()ndent :should be granted a decree of divorce under the said d . . . . . Col')si4fraQle arguments wer.e m;tde _from . the. bar at the time ##### th~ . sad .. but driavoidable conclusion· that this is a fit case in . wb~ ~9~. th~, ~earing of the appeal to impress on our mind the . great mJUStJce done · to the respondent by . the. appellant's. father who, we were told, had deliberately married · the appellant to the respondent at a point of time when ~e knew she was suffering fr"m a bad type · of leprosy, by suppressing that fact from the respondent. While we #### c have ourselves considerable susoic;ons in cw ..,in-:! t [1] 1at f1h is perh1p~ tr·•e·, we h<:ve t<>k~n <Tf'!"t c'lre nf)t to allow th;s fact to h;tve any weight in the matter of decidinsz this appeal. In the -system of marria"e .prevai [1] ing in the Hindu Societv. so 1onl! as marriatJeS cortinu~ to be arranged bv the parents. it will be iniquitous to allow the sins of the oarents who arrange the marriage to visit on their children who marry. Marria!le. according to Hindu Law. is a sacrament and II a ho1v u11ion for the performance of reJiqious duties. There can be no ouestion of either endangering or runturinq that relation on arco••nt of the conduct of the oarents. That is why marriaqe even thou~ brought about during the minority of either party thereto does not · perh1p~ tr·•e·, we h<:ve t<>k~n <Tf'!"t c'lre nf)t to allow th;s fact to h;tve !06 SU~REME COURT REPORTS [ 1974] 2 s.c.a. . . lid 'Divorce and dissolution of marriage are A make the m_arnagc m~aen to H.ndu Law bcfJre the st~tute step<'ed in conC<!p~ wbtch wc~c: a 1 Jaw From the moment a marriage bas been to modify the trad~tonal f th~ husband aod wife has to be considered completed the re 1a . 0~ ~f view of the welfare of the husband and conC<!p~ wbtch wc~c: a completed the re a . 0~ ~f view of the welfare of the husband and only from the pom add of the children, if any, of the marriage. wife and! _also!_ we mu_stw w'e have refused to be prejudiced by the consl era Fro~d thltl 0pol~: ~een motivated by. ~h::e eiiher the The appellant story that or the the appellant's father respondent who B .. consl era 0~een motivated by. The story that the respondent who may have doctor of indilfcrcnt means was aupcd and oeguued IIIlO was a >:oung 'tth the appellant by considerations of the position a marnagc w - 1 - h' ·' authoril and affluence of tn~ fathcr-m- ~w L~ one w 1cn, even 1! 11 be \as nothing to do w1th the qucsuon _whe~cr d1vorcc sh~uld be t~~~~ under the Hindu Marriage Act. L1kew1sc, the sug!esUJns male on behalf of the appellant that the respondent had been attempt- C ing to extort money fr~m her father, also have no beanng on the question we have to dec1de here. _we·_ should like to make another observation. Sociologists insist and they do so very -correctly that we, sho~ld not allow our ~ds _to_ be swayed by feelings of emouonal ·,oathtns and rcvuls.on . wtth which !~prosy patients have been treated throughout hu;;;::n hJStory D in aU countries throul!bout the world and that we should 'akc up a very humane and balanced outlook and accept leprosy "as simply another disorder that requires medical attention". We have no doubt that this is absolutely correct about what should be the sod.ll · ----approach to leprosy but to our mind this should not provide any justification for compelling a husband to live with a wife who is suller~g fr?m an aggravated form of leprosy and who can ~ve him [ and his chtldren leprosy almost any moment in their daily life, even th~ugh the legislature by a &tatutc has given the husband a way _oC_ rel1ef. We ~ave DO _doubt i!' our minds that the Jaw-makers do. not tr~at the subJCct of divorce lightly and mnst have taken into constder· at!on the consequences of one spouse being compelled to Jive intimately With another ~pouse who suiTers from leprosy wn.:n they pNvidcd tor a w~y out for the former. f 5 uf aocM h Ild 0 thh light 0 I fe Judgment tbc case we of these considerations of make tl1e High Court. no order as we to In dismiss casts. the facts the and appealcircwn· . and V.P.S. _Appeal_ _clismissed._