C. YOGESH Vs. P. JAYANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 17/10/2019 passed by the IV Additional Family Court, Chennai in O.P. No.4455 of 2017, in and by which, the IV Additional Family Court, Chennai, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant, disagreeing with the prayer for grant of divorce under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act and refusing to dissolve the marriage solemnised on 22/2/2015 between the appellant and the respondent.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband submitted that the respondent wife was a mentally retarded person and behaved like a child below the age of 5 years, as a result, she never stayed continuously in the matrimonial house and whenever she decided to go her parent's house, she had created problems with the appellant husband. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the respondent and her mother picked up quarrels with the appellant and his parents and abused them with filthy language and tarnished their image in the Society and thereby, caused mental cruelty on the appellant. Therefore, when the appellant has filed a petition in O.P. No.4455 of 2017 before the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai seeking dissolution of marriage under Sec. 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Family Court, without considering these aspects, though has given findings that the I.Q. level of the respondent is below normal, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has been advised to come to this Court.

(3.) Opposing the above prayer, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent has also admitted in the counter affidavit filed before the Family Court that she snores, stutters a little, bad odour emanates from her mouth and she was not intelligent enough in the estimation of the appellant. But, the difficulty in speaking and stammering/ stuttering problems are not the grounds for divorce. Therefore, the observation made by the Trial Court that the I.Q. level of the respondent wife is below normal cannot be put against her. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submitted that when the appellant has accepted the respondent as his wife and lived with her for two years from the date of marriage, he cannot complain about her after two years of their marriage life on the ground that she is mentally retarded and that the observation made by the Trial Court that her I.Q. level is below normal, has not been supported by any medical evidence. Although the Trial Court has valued and assessed the discretionary attitude and conduct of the respondent wife during the Trial, the same cannot be acceptable unless it is supported by any medical evidence. Moreover, the appellant, while pleading for divorce, has invoked only Sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, but, has not chosen to invoke Sec. 13(1)(iii) of the Act, which alone deals with unsound mind or mental disorder.