P.P. JAYARAJAN Vs. M.P. SUNITHAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the petitioner in OP No.329/2005 challenging judgment dated 10/3/2008 by which his claim for divorce had been rejected. The parties got married on 5/12/1994 as per Hindu religious customs and ceremonies. One female child was born in the wedlock, who was 10 years old at the time of filing the petition. Divorce is sought by the petitioner on the ground u/s 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. According to the petitioner, even from the initial days of marriage, respondent/wife was quarrelling with him and behaving in an abnormal manner. On 16/12/2004, she was taken to Santhi Clinic and was admitted by Dr.Vasudevan. She remained in the hospital for seven days. Thereafter, she became pregnant and a child was born in the wedlock in 1995. She was again treated at Medical College Hospital for two weeks. He had constructed a house near the house of the respondent and they were living there. But since the respondent was not willing to take medicines, her situation aggravated and she even threatened to commit suicide. She was also admitted in Krishna Hospital, but there was no improvement. Finally, they had to separate themselves. Petitioner also contended that she had attempted to commit suicide on several occasions. Respondent denied the allegations, as according to her, the allegation of mental illness is absolutely baseless. She had not committed any act of cruelty as alleged and therefore she sought for dismissal of the petition.

(2.) The above case was tried along with OP No.137/07 and MC No.343/2005. Common evidence was adduced. Petitioner was examined as PW1. He relied upon Exts.A1 to A16. Respondent was examined as RW1. In order to grant divorce u/s 13(1)(iii), there has to be proof that the wife has been incurably of unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. In the case on hand, there is no such evidence. If there is allegation of mental illness, necessarily, medical evidence ought to have been adduced by him. In the absence of any such evidence, Court below was justified in rejecting the said claim. The allegation of cruelty is also made based on the same set of facts and there is no evidence to prove any such cruelty as well.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant however would submit that attempt was made to adduce medical evidence by calling upon the Mental Health Centre to produce records. No such records had been produced and therefore an opportunity should be given to the appellant to adduce evidence.