DILIP KUMAR Vs. SHRIMATI CHETNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has preferred first appeal under Sec. 28 of Hindu Marriage Act against judgment and decree dtd. 19/4/2006 passed in Matrimonial Case No.73-A/2003 by District Judge, Tikamgarh.

(2.) Appellant was plaintiff and respondent was defendant before the Trial Court. Marriage between appellant and respondent was performed on 31/5/1998 at Tikamgarh according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. Family members of respondent suppressed the fact of mental illness of respondent. When respondent arrived at house after marriage, her behavior was abnormal, she remained ignorant and unaware of works of married woman in the house. She continuously used to move her legs forgetting modesty of woman. She did not share household work with other family members. She used to laugh and cry without reasons. When she was questioned for her behavior, she used to deny that she laughed or cried. She used to treat her son cruelly and used to beat him and throw him on ground and also treated appellant's mother cruelly. She did not use to cook food in house. If she has started jet pump, used to forget to switch off the same and she acted similarly while cooking food and used to burn the food. All the time, appellant was living under mental harassment and tension. Respondent did not have any love and affection for appellant and always used to do strange works in the house and there was always possibility of some serious accident in the house due to her behavior. Respondent was treated at Delhi, Lalitpur, Gaziabad and doctors diagnosed her to be suffering from psychiatric problem. Her presence in house was threat to mother and children of appellant. Appellant was facing great hardship and trouble in living with 24 hours mental tension. In these circumstances, appellant had filed a case for dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty under Sec. 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(3.) Counsel appearing for appellant submitted that he examined himself, his neighbor Bhagwandas Gupta (PW/2), one Pritish Jain (PW/3) who were acquainted with behavior of respondent and also examined Dr. Sudha Gupta (PW/4) and Dr. Anil Dohre (PW/5), who treated the respondent. Learned trial Court had committed an error of law in not considering aforesaid evidence available on record. Provisions of law was misconstrued and judgment and decree was passed in cryptic and arbitrary manner without analyzing evidence available on record. Trial Court ought to have granted decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and on fact that respondent is suffering from incurable mental disease. Appellant makes a prayer for allowing the appeal and dissolution of marriage on aforesaid grounds.