D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is by the husband who had preferred M.C. No. 126 of 1996 before the Court of II Additional Civil Judge at Mysore praying for a decree of divorce in his favour as against the respondent-wife and for dissolution of their marriage which had been solemnised on 26-5-1991 on the ground of cruelty on the part of the wife and also on the ground that the respondent-wife is a person suffering from schizophrenia and the mental disorder which she suffers intermittently was of such kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot be reasonably expected to live with the respondent.
2. The Trial Court which looked into the petition having not agreed with the petitioner and having declined to grant the relief, the husband is in appeal before us.
3. Brief facts leading to the petition and the appeal are that the parties who follow Hindu customs and rituals became husband and wife as per the marriage performed in accordance with the customary rights that took place on 26-5-1991 at Chikmagalur, parents' place of the respondent-wife. The parties are however, related even prior to themarriage. The respondent-wife being the petitioners cousin i.e., the daughter of the sister of the petitioner's father.
4. The petition averments are that the respondent joined the petitioner in his matrimonial house at Mysore 10 days after the marriage and prior to this and after the marriage, the parties had stayed at the petitioner's family house at Kundapura for about a week. The further averments are that the respondent started showing her true colours within about 15 days after the marriage and her behaviour was very abnormal and violent. The further plea is that the respondent was not evincing interest in her matrimonial duties and ill-treating the petitioner and other members of the family by using abusive and filthy language and became a source of embarrassment to the family by her ill-conduct.
5. The petitioner also pleaded that the respondent conceived within about 4 months after the marriage; that she delivered a female baby by name Gouthami but, the conduct and behaviour of the respondent during pregnancy and after the childbirth was very abnormal; that the child was also not only underdeveloped but also had certain mental disorders as opined by the doctors who had examined the child and that the child suffered from certain congenital abnormalities.
6. It is further pleaded in the petition that the respondent conceived for the second time and she preferred to delivery the child at her parents place at Chickmagalur. The petitioner agreed and sent the respondent to her parents place for delivery of the second child. It is pleaded that in the meanwhile, the first child died at Chickmagalur and though the respondent gave birth to another female child at Chickmagalur, she never returned to the family home and her abnormal behaviour using abusive language against the petitioner and other members of his family including assaults continued. It is averred that as the family members of the respondent could not keep check or control over the respondent due to her violent behaviour they sent the respondent to Mysore 4 months after the birth of the second child.
7. Petitioner also averred that at the instance of the respondent the petitioner set up a separate house at Jayanagar in Mysore but, during the brief stay in that house, the respondent's conduct and behaviour only changed from bad to worse. The bad behaviour of the respondent caused great mental agony to the petitioner and members of his family. That the second child also was not a healthy one. The petitioner took lot of interest in having the child examined and treated by several experts and at several hospitals; that it came to his knowledge that the condition of the child was due to the mental disorder of the respondent which according to the petitioner was a hereditary one. That the crude and violent behaviour of the respondent did not allow the petitioner to rest in peace and to attend to his day-to-day chores. It affected his business of goldsmithry and he could not keep up the contracts with his customers and deliver the ornaments in time etc.
8. That the respondent continued with her abnormal behaviour, would threaten the petitioner that she would desert him and marry some other person and in such circumstances, it became necessary for the petitioner to have her examined by a Psychiatrist by name Sri H.S. Venkatesh at Mysore. It is averred that the doctor who treated the respondent had opined that she was suffering from schizophrenia and there may not be improvement in her condition, that she may require lifetime treatment for her condition. The petitioner further averred that on account of such condition of the respondent, the petitioner was deprived of a happy marital life, incompatibility of temperament and negligence in her day-to-day duties and damaging activities by the respondent has all caused great mental agony to the petitioner and constitutes an act of cruelty and as such sought for dissolution of the marriage.
9. The respondent to whom the notice was issued entered appearance and contested the proceedings. While the marriage between the parties on 25-6-1991 was admitted it was emphatically denied that the respondent was suffering from any mental disorder and as such, she required to be represented through a guardian, her younger brother. It was pleaded that in fact, such averments were made in the petition with a view to cause prejudice against her. The respondent denied that either she was behaving in an abnormal manner or that she had treated the petitioner with cruelty; that the couple were living normal marital life; that she had conceived twice and gave birth to two children; that she never insisted for the petitioner to set up any separate residence for their living nor had she ill-treated the members of his family. She denied that the children died due to her mental condition or due to any abnormal development of the child attributable to her own defects; that even after the birth of the second child she had joined the matrimonial house and had been living with her husband. It was pleaded on behalf of the respondent that even the mother of the petitioner who had begotten children prior to the petitioner had lost all the 4 children because of underdevelopment and due to certain infantile disease.
10. The respondent pleaded that there was nothing wrong in her conduct or behaviour; that their families being closely related, the petitioner knew about the respondent even prior to the marriage; that it was at the insistence of the father of the petitioner that the marriage had taken place; that as she could not beget a male child, the petitioner and his people got prejudiced against the respondent; that even after their second child died, she had conceived for the 3rd time but, the petitioner took her to Harsha Nursing Home at Mysore and got the pregnancy forcibly terminated against her will and this had caused great mental shock and anguish and at that time she was forced to consume several drugs and she was taken to several doctors thereafter; that the petitioner and members of his family had developed great dislike and prejudice against the respondent for her inability to bare a male child; that she was prevented from even speaking to the petitioner by the members of his family and they treated her like a servant in the family. It was the petitioner who took her to her parents place and left her there and though he had promised to take her back, instead got issued a legal notice dated 29-9-1996 seeking for her consent for a decree of divorce. The other petition averments were denied. That she could live a normal marital iife and not as pleaded by the petitioner and accordingly, the respondent sought for dismissal of the petition.
11. In such circumstances, the Trial Court formulated the following 4 points for consideration:
(i) Whether the petitioner has proved that the respondent has treated him with cruelty?
(ii) Whether the petitioner has proved that the respondent is suffering from intermittent mental disorder?
(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce of his marriage with the respondent?
(iv) What order?
12. While the petitioner examined himself and one doctor H.S. Venkatesh as P.W. 2 in support of his case and got marked documents Exs. P. 1 to P. 23 which inter alia included certificates by doctors, Exs. P. 4 and P. 5. Certain prescriptions to respondent, Ex. P. 13, Report of St. John's Hospital about the condition of the child, Ex. P. 14 and more reports. Ex. P. 15 is the certificate issued by one Dr. N.S. Mahadevaiah, Pediatrician regarding the pediatric developmental and neurological examination of the first daughter of the couple and on noticing poor blood control and poor development of the child inter alia opined that this may be due to the fact that the child is born to a couple of consanguineous marriage. More medical certificates and reports as per Exs. P. 18 to P. 20 are marked and photos of the respondent as per Ex. P. 22 series.
13. On behalf of the respondent, the respondent herself entered the box and also examined her brother Sudhakara Rao Shet as D.W. 2 and one doctor Mathew Vergese, Additional Professor of Psychiatry at Nimhans, Bangalore. The respondent also got marked photographs as per Exs. P. 21 and P. 22 taken at the time of engagement, marriage and on the previous day in connection with the customary function performed, SSLC mark sheet, Ex. D. 3, Ex. D. 5 case-sheet of the record at Nimhans where the respondent had been treated as an out-patient and also the report of the hospital and a copy of the complaint registered at Kuvempu Nagar Police Station on 26-5-1994, complaining that she has been ill-treated by her husband, his relatives including his brother and brother's wife etc., that she should be protected and they should be advised to refrain from such ill-treatment etc.
14. In his evidence, the petitioner while supporting the petition plea has stated that the respondent was not taking proper care of him nor was she treating him with love and affection but was using abusive language against him and was not friendly and co-operative with other friends who were visiting his house; that she was not taking proper care of the children either. He had got examined the two children born to them and had provided all medical treatment but, notwithstanding the children did not survive. The respondent's conduct of using abusive language only increased and she also even started assaulting him and that he got her examined by a doctor at Chickmagalur and learnt thatshe was a schizophrenic patient and on the recommendation of the doctor at Chickmagalur she was further examined by doctor H.S. Venkatesh at Mysore who had opined that she was suffering from schizophrenia and of incurable degree. That on occasions she would even remove her Mangalasutra, throw all her bangles and threaten the petitioner that she would marry some other person and such conduct caused him great mental agony and constituted acts of cruelty. That his business suffered because of the conduct of the respondent.
15. P.W. 2-Doctor H.S. Venkatesh in his deposition has stated that he examined the respondent, the wife of the petitioner-Panduranga Shet on being referred by one doctor Venkatesh at Chickmagalur who is also a psychiatrist. He has stated that the patient over a period of one year might have visited him on 5 to 6 occasions. He was of the view that she was suffering from schizophrenia largely from heredity. He has also indicated that she was not taking proper care of her personal hygiene when she was brought to him for the first time and was unable to perform her day-to-day activities on such occasion. She had delusions and hallucinations. He has also indicated that her condition did not improve considerably and that there is no complete cure for the kind of ailment that the respondent was suffering. He had also indicated that the condition may manifest in the prozonia also. But has opined that the condition will not come in the way of the person cohabiting with his spouse and was not a condition which is attributable to the stress or strain or due to mental tension. The behaviour of such persons will be aloofness, speaking to themselves, hallucinations. The doctor has opined that there was no possibility of such person leading a happy and contented life.
16. In his cross-examination he has indicated that the kind of psychosis the respondent was suffering was neither a case of drug psychosis nor epileptic psychosis. Antipsychotic treatment may be given after diagnosis. That his assessment to the effect that the children of the respondent may also suffer from such condition was from the information that the respondent's mother was also suffering from such condition. That he was not aware of the circumstances of the death of the two children of the respondent. That even the patients with the puerperal psychosis which normally begins in the month of delivery of child and remains for three months after delivery, the symptoms exhibited by such patients are similar to that of a schizophrenic. The doctor could not indicate the stage of the schizophrenic condition of the patient in the sense that he could not say whether the respondent was in the advanced stage or beginning stage of the disease. That he had examined the patient only about for half an hour when she was brought to him for the first time and on the basis of symptoms that she exhibited and on the basis of the recommendation by the other referring doctor he had prescribed treatment to the patient. That he had issued a certification under Ex. P. 4 at the request of the husband of the patient and it was not based on any laboratory tests but only on clinical observation and examination of the patient. This doctor has pleaded ignorance about the patient having just then given birth to a baby whenshe was brought to him for examination. The overall effect of the evidence of the doctor is that the condition exhibited by the patient examined by him could have been attributable to the condition that a person exhibits immediately after the delivery if the person is suffering from puerperal psychosis.
17. As against this evidence of Doctor Venkatesh, Doctor Mathew Vergese, Psychiatrist at the Nimhans, Bangalore had opined that the respondent was suffering from mental disorders and mild depression. This doctor did not indicate that she was suffering from schizophrenia.
18. The Trial Court on examination of the oral and documentary evidence was of the view that the petitioner has not proved any acts of cruelty on the part of the wife which could constitute a ground for dissolution of the marriage. This question was answered against the petitioner. With regard to the question as to whether the petitioner had proved that the respondent is suffering from intermittent mental disorder, this question was also answered against the petitioner and accordingly, the petition has been dismissed.
19. So far as the first ground is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner-appellant did not seriously challenge the finding given by the Trial Court that the petitioner-husband was not able to prove any acts of cruelty on the part of the wife practised against her husband. That leaves us with the question as to whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the petition on the ground of mental disorder also. It is on this question, the learned Counsel for the appellant had addressed extensive arguments.
20. It is the submission of Mr. Raghupathy, learned Counsel for the appellant, that the Trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the petition on this ground of mental disorder on the part of the respondent. That the material on record was sufficient to hold that the petitioner had proved this ground and the marriage between the parties should have been dissolved under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act and the relief granted to the petitioner-husband.
21. Learned Counsel by drawing our attention to the evidence of Dr. H.S. Venkatesh, who has been examined as P.W. 2 submits that he had indicated that the respondent was suffering from schizophrenia, that her condition may not change over a period of time, that there was no known cure for such a condition and the Doctor had also opined about the conduct and manner of presentation when the respondent was examined by him on the first occasion that she was not very mindful of her personal hygiene, that she was looking withdrawn, non-chalant and that there is no possibility of such a person leading happy and contented life. Learned Counsel has also submitted that schizophrenia is such a condition which is one within the meaning of such mental disorder and constitutes a ground for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act and the evidence of this witness should have been simply accepted by the Court below and the petition allowed.
22. Learned Counsel further elaborating the submission contended that the Trial Court was not justified in merely ignoring the evidence of P.W. 2 just because another doctor, Dr. Mathew Vergese examined as D.W. 3 on behalf of the respondent had opined that the respondent was suffering from only a mild depression and from mental disorder. The submission of the learned Counsel is that even assuming that the opinions of two expert witnesses did not concur the Court should have called another expert witness for ascertaining the real condition of the respondent. The Trial Court not having done so the appellant has filed an application for such purpose before this Court and this Court should permit the applicant to lead additional evidence by examining another doctor and further submits that either the application may be allowed by this Court in this appeal and the evidence may be permitted to be led here or for such purpose the matter could be remitted to the Trial Court. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that schizophrenia is such a condition that it will not affect the patient continuously but only intermittently and the patient who may appear normal may behave abnormally at other times. The learned Counsel submits this in the context of the observations made by the Trial Court that the respondent who had appeared before the Court did not appear to be suffering from any such serious mental disorder. It is also submitted that in the context of such development this Court had directed the respondent to appear before this Court and the respondent when appeared was able to answer all questions posed by the Court in a satisfactory manner.
23. What is sought to be highlighted by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the conduct of the respondent in not showing any emotions, either of joy when she conceived and gave birth to two children or of any sadness when the children died is in itself a clear indication of the condition of the respondent that she is suffering from schizophrenia and it will be almost impossible for the appellant to lead a normal marital life with a person bereft of any emotions. It is also submitted that the leading authors and experts in the field have indicated as to what condition such patients manifest and in respect of the same learned Counsel has placed reliance on the passages that occurs in the text book 'Psychiatry' by Sri A. Venkoba Rao at pages 34 to 39 as also on the textbook authored by Sri S.K. Mangal titled 'Abnormal Psychology' occurring between pages 134 to 149.
24. We have given our serious consideration to the submissions urged on behalf of the appellant and the material relied upon by them. Insofar as the ground of mental disorder is concerned what is required under law and as indicated in Section 13(1)(iii) is that a person should be suffering from such mental disorder and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. It is not the mere mental disorder in itself that entitles for relief under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act. Mental disorder of such a degree that it is impossible to lead normal marital life or it is unreasonable to accept a person to put up with a spouse with such condition.
25. Even assuming for argument sake without going to the controversy as to whether the respondent is suffering from schizophrenia has been proved or not, and accepting one of the doctor's opinion that it is so and that the respondent is suffering from schizophrenia, the next question will be as to whether the petitioner has been able to prove that it was impossible or unreasonable for the petitioner to be expected to live with such a person. In this regard the pleadings in the petition on this issue is as under:
'It is submitted that the respondent used to speak non-sense and used to say that she would marry again and by saying so she used to remove her mangalasutra, bangles, kumkum'.
Though the petitioner had pleaded that he apprehends torture at the hands of the respondent nothing much is stated about the same in the evidence. In fact, it is the very act which are referred to in para 4 of the petition which are also relied on the other acts of cruelty as against the petitioner which has been rightly negatived by the Court below. If such acts are not made home and those acts did not constitute act of cruelty it is rather difficult to believe that it may be impossible for the petitioner to live with the respondent. Ex. P. 4-certificate issued by Dr. H.S. Venkatesh, P.W. 2 is dated 1-10-1996, The Doctor has opined that the respondent was under treatment from 6-9-1995 to 28-6-1996 and her condition had not changed ever since and she may require treatment throughout her life. Petitioner himself has referred to such condition and has complained about it for the first time only in the year 1995 when the respondent was taken to the Doctor at Chickmagalur and thereafter referred to Dr. H.S. Venkatesh. It is noteworthy that the parties had lived together as husband and wife for a period of more than 4 years by that time. Admittedly, the respondent had given birth to two children though died because of other complications later. Petitioner has come up with a plea that the respondent had started showing her true colour even 15 days after the marriage but admits that he took her to the Doctor only in the year 1995. That means the petitioner did not notice any such abnormality in the respondent which necessitated treatment at the hands of a competent Doctor for about 4 years. If the petitioner could have lived with the condition which the respondent was exhibiting for 4 years it is difficult to believe for any one that it is such a condition that no person can be expected to Jive with her as husband and it will be unreasonable to ask the petitioner to live with her as his wife any further.
26. Except the Doctor stating that the condition may not improve and such a person cannot lead happy marital life there is nothing else on record to indicate the condition of the respondent to say that it was so bad that no spouse can be expected to live with her in such a condition. But even the evidence given by P.W. 2-Dr. H.S. Venkatesh has wilted under the pressure of cross-examination. He has clearly admitted about his ignorance under what circumstances the respondent had been taken to him on the first occasion for examination and treatment. In his cross-examination he has stated that he was not aware of the fact that therespondent had delivered a child within a month of his examining her and the condition that the respondent exhibited could have been attributable to the after-effects of the childbirth also.
27. What is required to be proved for the purposes of Section 13(1)(iii) is that the respondent is not only suffering from mental disorder but also of such a degree and extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with her as her spouse. This has not been brought home at all from the evidence on record.
28. The application for additional evidence is only for the purposes of proving that the respondent is suffering from the condition of schizophrenia. We have, as discussed above indicated mere proving that the respondent was suffering from this condition is not the end in itself. What was really required to be proved and has not been proved cannot be allowed to be proved affording another opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in this regard by examining another Doctor. Accordingly, we reject the application filed for amendment of the petition pleadings and the application for leading additional evidence. We have also rejected another application made before this Court during the pendency of this appeal for appointment of a Commissioner and we have indicated the reason for the same as per our order dated 27-3-2003. The reasoning equally holds good in the context of these applications also.
29. Insofar as granting the relief of divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act is concerned the nature and the degree of mental disorder which meets the requirements, has been clearly discussed and spelt out in the leading decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Narain Gupta v. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta, : AIR1988SC2260 . The Supreme Court had occasion to observe in this regard as under:
'The context in which the ideas of unsoundness of 'mind' and 'mental disorder' occur in the section as grounds for dissolution of a marriage, require the assessment of the degree of the 'mental disorder'. Its degree must be such as that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not recognised as grounds for grant of decree. If the mere existence of any degree of mental abnormality could justify dissolution of a marriage few marriages would, indeed, survive in law. . . . . 'Schizophrenia' it is true, is said to be difficult mental affliction. It is said to be insidious in its onset and has hereditary pre-disposing factor. It is characterized by the shallowness of emotions and is marked by a detachment from reality. In paranoid states, the victim responds even to fleeting expressions of disapproval from others by disproportionate reactions generated by hallucinations of persecution. Even well meant acts of kindness and of expression of sympathy appear to the victim as insidious traps. In its worst manifestation, this illness produces a crude wrench from reality and brings about a lowering of the higher mental functions. . . . But the personalitydisintegration that characterises this illness may be of varying degrees. Not all schizophrenics are characterised by the same intensity of the decease. The mere branding of a person as schizophrenic therefore will not suffice. For purposes of Section 13(1)(iii) 'schizophrenia' is what schizophrenia does. Ram Narain Gupta v. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta, 1987 All. L.J. 483 affirmed'.
30. The Apex Court has observed that 'schizophrenia' is what schizophrenia does and it is not mere presence or existence of schizophrenia that constitutes the ground for relief but what that condition is actually doing to the respondent against whom relief is sought for that is most important. Unless and until it is proved that the condition is such that the petitioning spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other, relief cannot be granted under this provision.
31. We have indicated that the material on record was totally inadequate in arriving at a conclusion of this nature. The finding of the Trial Court is on the contrary the other way. The Trial Court is fully justified in giving a finding that the conduct of the respondent never indicated that the petitioner was put to any risk or danger to his life or that he had found it impossible to lead a normal marital life with her. On the other hand, petitioner had been living with the respondent even just two years prior to the date of his giving evidence before the Court and was cohabiting with the respondent. The Trial Judge has also observed that the respondent who was examined on oath before the Court had answered all questions in a very sensible and normal manner and the Court did not notice any abnormal behaviour.
32. It is in such circumstance the Trial Court has concluded that the material placed on record by the petitioner was not sufficient to conclude that the petitioner had made out a case under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act. We do not find any error or illegality in the conclusion arrived at by the Court below. We do not find any scope for interference or for granting relief in favour of the petitioner. This Court cannot brand a person as a person suffering from such condition for the mere reason of the marriage having been broken down or that parties may not be able to live together henceforth.
33. Respondent has also filed an application before this Court seeking for enhancement of interim maintenance and for maintenance in future also. Now she has been living separately from her husband and she is being taken care of by her brother. During the pendency of the present proceedings before the Trial Court interim maintenance at a sum of Rs. 750/- had been awarded. An application has now been filed seeking for enhancement of the same to Rs. 3,000/- on the premise that the respondent needs an additional amount for medical expenses for taking care of an attendant to her and due to increase in the cost of living etc. It is also pleaded that it may not be possible for her to depend on her brother who was taking care of her all along and if she has to live by herself she definitely requires a sum not less than Rs. 3,000/- and as such sought for enhancement during the pendency of this appeal.
34. While it is true that a sum of Rs. 750/- does not reflect the proper quantum that can take care of the needs of the respondent, we are passing orders now on this application fixing the amount of maintenance which will have to be paid from the date of admission of this appeal i.e., 23-6-1998. Therefore, we are inclined to permit increase in the quantum of maintenance in a phased manner over a period of time rather than fixing the same amount for the entire period. Under the circumstances we fix maintenance to be paid from the date of admission of this appeal upto 31st May, 2002 to be at Rs. 1,000/- per month and from 1-6-2002 onwards at Rs. 1,500/- per month. We direct that the amount of maintenance will have to be paid as per this order and shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent within a period of 10 weeks from today by means of demand draft drawn in favour of the respondent. Current maintenance also shall be paid by or before 10th of each month.
35. The appeal is dismissed, except for the fixation of maintenance.