A.K. Awasthy, J.
1. This appeal is filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.8.2000 passed in Civil Suit No. 10A/98 by the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Begamganj Distt. Raisen, allowing the petition of the respondent/petitioner for dissolution, of marriage under Section 13(1)(iii) of the hindu Marriage Act.
2. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant/wife and respondent/ husband got married on 6.7.1992 and they lived as husband wife till 12.9.1995. It is also the common ground that the appellant wife is residing with her parents and she had no issue from the wedlock.
3. The case of the husband/respondent was that before his marriage his wife was mentally ill and after the marriage, the respondent husband has incurred a lot of expenses in getting his wife treated for her mental ailment. That the appellant wife had made attempt to commit the suicide. That the behaviour of his wife in the house and in the society was so reprehensible that it has become very difficult for the respondent/husband to live with his wife and there is continuous apprehension of any untoward incident. The respondent/husband has prayed in his petition that the affliction and agony caused to the respondent due to the insanity of the appellant and as such the marriage be dissolved by the decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
4. The appellant/wife has contested the petition and averred that the allegation of her being mentally ill and of abnormal behaviour are false and baseless. She has denied that she was treated for her mental illness. It is averred that petition be dismissed.
5. Learned Trial Court has examined the appellant and his witnesses Devendra Kumar Jain (A.W. 2), Sandeep Kumar Jain (A.W. 3), Man Singh (A.W. 4) and Dr. S.K. Tandon (A.W, 5). The non-applicant has examined herself and her father Ratanchand (N.A.W. 2), Chandra Kumar (N.A.W. 3) and Subhash (N.A.W. 4). The learned Trial Court concluded that the appellant/wife is suffering from mental disorder of such a kind that husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with her and has passed decree of divorce accordingly.
6. The appellant has assailed the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court on the ground that it is wrongly concluded that the appellant/wife was mentally ill and that the ground of mental illness was of such a nature that the husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with her.
7. Dr. S.K. Tandon (A.W. 5) who was Neuro-Psychiatrist in Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal has deposed in his statement that Smt. Priya Devi, wife of respondent/Pramod Kumar Jain, was examined and treated by him for the disease known as Manic Depressive Cycosis. Dr. S.K. Tandon (A.W. 5) has further stated that the prescription Ex. P/3 dated 6.3.1995, Ex. P/4 dated 12.3.1995, Ex. P/5 dated 23.3.1995 and Ex: P/7 dated 30.3.1995 were given by him after the examination of said Priya Devi. Dr. S.K. Tandon (A.W. 5) has deposed that the behaviour of the wife of respondent/husband was abnormal. Appellant as N.A.W. 1 has admitted in paragraph 5 of her cross-examination that she was taken by her husband for the medical treatment to Dr. Tandon. Letter Ex. P/8 was sent by the brother brother of appellant Kamalshri (N.A.W. 1) to respondent and it was written therein that appellant will be taken for a treatment to Dr. Tandon. Consequently, it is proved that appellant was provided with treatment for her mental illness by Dr. S.K. Tandon (A.W. 5). It is established from the evidence of Dr. S.K. Tandon that the appellant was suffering from Manic Depressive Cycosis.
8. Now the only point for consideration remains is whether the mental disorder of appellant/wife was of such a kind and to such an extend that her husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with her. Respondent Pramod Kumar Jain has deposed in his statement that on one night the appellant locked herself in bath-room and she set the clothes on fire and when the door of the bathroom was broken to save her, she started saying that she does not want to live and wants to die. Pramod Kumar (A.W. 1) has further stated that about 6 years back his wife abruptly entered into his shop and pushed him and started dragging him out from the shop and thereafter she remained sitting on the floor of the shop. Pramod Kumar (A.W. 1) has averred that in the Jain Temple, she abruptly took away the plate and articles of worship. It is further alleged that when his friend Sandeep Jain came to his house, she poured the water in the tea-cup which was brought by her sister.
9. Devendra Kumar Jain (A.W. 2) has stated that when he was doing Puja in the temple, the appellant abruptly took away the religious books and other articles of Puja and thereafter she started laughing like a mad woman.
10. Sandeep Kumar Jain (A.W. 3) has deposed in his statement that at about 8 p.m. when he was taking the tea in the house of the respondent, his wife entered in the room and she poured glass of water in the cup of the tea. Man Singh (A.W. 4) has deposed that one day at about 7 p.m. when he was sitting in the shop of the respondent, his wife came there and asked the respondent to leave the shop. Man Singh (A.W. 4) has further stated that the respondent when refused to leave the shop, his wife squatted on the road. In the cross-examination of Devendra Kumar Jain (A.W. 2), Sandeep Kumar Jain (A.W. 3) and Man Singh (A.W. 4), there is nothing to doubt the verasity of their statements. Consequently, it is proved that the behaviour of the appellant/wife due to her mental illness was so apprehensive and reprehensive that it was torture for the respondent/husband to live with her. The mental agony and affliction caused to the respondent/husband by the hazardous Act and conduct of the appellant/wife establishes that the mental disorder of the appellant/wife was of such a kind and so extensive that it was not possible for the respondent/husband to live normal peaceful life with his wife.
11. The learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and the law applicable in the case and the learned Trial Court has rightly dissolved the marriage by the decree of divorce on the ground mentioned under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
12. There is no force in the appeal and hence the appeal is hereby dismissed.