TRIMLESH BHARTI Vs. SHRAVAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal has been preferred un­der Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 27-9-2003 passed by the Judge, Fam­ily Court, Dehradun, in Original Suit No. 34 of 2002, Shravan Kumar vs. Smt. Trimlesh, whereby the learned Judge has passed decree for divorce dissolving the marriage solemnized be­tween the parties on 2-12-1988.

(2.) BRIEF facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the respondent­husband had initially filed a suit for di­vorce against the appellant in the Court of Additional District Judge Indore (Madhya Pradesh), which was ulti­mately transferred for hearing at Dehradun Court under the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18­9-2000. The petitioner-respondent has alleged in his petition that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 2-12-1988 at Dehradun according to the Hindu rites and customs. Out of the wedlock, one son Sushant Bharati was born, who is aged 8 years and has been living with the respondent at Indore; that the petitioner has been liv­ing with the respondent at Indore; that the petitionerrespondent is employed as Divisional Engineer in the Telephone Department and at the time of mar­riage, he was posted as Scientist in D.R.D.O. Dehradun, According to the respondent, this marriage was con­tracted by the Tau (elder brother of fa­ther) of the appellant, who holds politi­cal influence and the marriage was set­tled on short date on the pretext that the father of the appellant is seriously bed ridden, therefore, the respondent has no adequate opportunity to ob­serve the appellant before marriage. After the marriage, the respondent found that there are symptoms of men­tal disorder in the appellant and her activities were abnormal. She fre­quently used to quarrel with the re­spondent saying that the respondent has no Bungalow, servants, motor-car, etc. Subsequently, the respondent was selected as Engineer in the Telecom De­partment and was posted at Ahmedabad. The appellant was taken there and there also, she used to adhere abnormal behaviour. Consequently, the respondent was compelled to take help from the Psychic Experts and Mental Disease Specialist. The appellant was given treatment by several Specialists at different hospitals and clinics. Ulti­mately, it was established that the ap­pellant is suffering from disease "Chronic Schizophrenia". On 17.9.1998, the appellant wrote letter to her father that she is suffering from ill health despite treatment and she went to her parents at Dehradun and she has been living there. When the respondent informed the parents of the appellant of the aforesaid Chronic Disease of the appellant since before her marriage, their attitude towards the respondent changed and they used to hurl abuses to the respondent by telephone and let­ters. All these affairs made it impossi­ble for the respondent to live with the appellant. According to the respondent, the appellant-wife was not fit to per­form her marital obligation and co­habitation etc, hence the petition for divorce has been filed.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge framed as many as seven Issues in the case. Issue No. 1 re­lated to suffering of appellant from chronic mental disease Schizophrenia. Issue No. 2 related to marriage between the parties by fraud concealing the said disease of the appellant. Issue No. 3 re­lated to the possibility of cure of the said disease. Issue No. 4 related to the relief and cost. Issue No. 5 related to bar of limitation to file the petition. Is­sue No. 6 related to maintenance of Rs. 10.000/- to the appellant as alleged in .he written statement. Issue No. 7 has been framed regarding custody of the minor son. The learned Judge took Is­sue Nos. 1 and 2 together for decision. After discussing the entire evidence on record, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the consent of marriage from the respondent was obtained un­der pressure and by committing fraud. It has also been held that the appellant was suffering from the said chronic dis­ease from before her marriage. Accord­ingly, both the Issues No. 1 and 2 have been decided in favour of the respond­ent. On Issue No. 3, it has been held that the disease of the appellant is in­curable and is dangerous. It has also been observed by the learned Judge that in the interest and welfare of the minor son, the custody of the minor son with the respondent is proper. On Issue No. 5, the learned Judge found that the petition for divorce is not barred by limitation. On Issue No. 3, the learned Judge has come to the con­clusion that the appellant is entitled to get the sum of Rs. 3,00,000 (three lacs) from the respondent towards perma­nent alimony/maintenance. On Issue No. 7 relating to custody of the minor son, the learned Judge found that it will be just and proper in the interest and welfare, education, etc. of the minor that the respondent shall continue the custody of the minor son and the ap­pellant is not entitled to the custody of the minor son. Consequently, the learned Judge has come to the conclu­sion that the petition of the respondent for divorce is liable to be decreed. Ac­cordigly the learned Judge passed decree of divorce in favour of the re­spondent thereby dissolving the mar­riage between the parties by a decree of divorce. The respondent-husband has been directed to pay sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lacs) towards perma­nent alimony/maintenance within two months. The custody of the minor son has been given to the respondent-father with liberty to appellant to meet her son from time to time, as mentioned in the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant wife has come up in appeal.