RAJESHWAR PRASAD KAUSHAL Vs. GAYATRI KAUSHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

(2.) Appellant/husband is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 11-4-2019 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, in H.M.A. No.366/15 dismissing his application under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for brevity 'the Act'] for grant of divorce.

(3.) Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the parties were married on 17-4-2009 as per Hindu rites and rituals. They have a daughter Baby Kusum residing with the respondent/wife. It was pleaded in the application that from the very next day of the marriage the respondent insisted to leave the matrimonial house, but on persuasion stayed for 5-6 days and called her mother to return to her parental house, but did not come back for 15-20 days. Thereafter, when she reached the matrimonial house she bolted the door of her bedroom and did not open, on which police was called for opening the door. After 3-4 days she left the house alone at about 8.00 pm in the night and was somehow persuaded to return to her house. Her mother informed the elderly persons of the society that she is a schizophrenic, which was not informed to the appellant before marriage. The respondent went back to her parental house and returned to the appellant's house after one month. During this time she was administered treatment by quack and Psychiatrist. However, her abnormal behaviour continued, therefore, she was taken to a Psychiatrist Dr. Arunanshu Parial. The respondent used to wear white saree without putting bangles and vermilion on her forehead, which are symbols of a married woman. Meeting of caste panchayat was convened, but the situation did not improve. She used to call elderly persons in the in-laws' family by their name and on one night she jumped to the neighbours house from the roof of appellant's house. She used to leave her matrimonial house every now and then without any rhyme or reason. When the appellant and other family members objected to her behaviour she used to filthily abuse them and locked the door from inside. Various other incidents of her abnormal behaviour have been mentioned in the plaint.