KADAMBANI SAHU Vs. RESHAMLAL SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under S.28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-10-83 passed by Shri D.R. Pundlik, District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 28A of 1982 dissolving the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce under S.13(1)(iii) of the Act.

(2.) That the parties were married in accordance with Hindu rites in March, 1988 and lived together as husband and wife for a year and a half, does not appear to be in dispute. According to the respondent's application under S.13 of the Act, the appellant was suffering from epilepsy, as a result of which she very often lost consciousness and suffered convulsions. The respondent claims to have got her treated and spent Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- for that purpose, without any result. In his application, it is alleged that though the appellant suffered the disease from before the date of marriage, he was not informed about it and therefore, he underwent marriage ceremony without being told about it. According to the application, the disease has posed a danger to the life of the appellant and has made it risky for him to live with the appellant. The application further discloses that there is no likelihood of the appellant being cured of the disease. He, therefore, prayed for a decree of divorce. The appellant, in her written statement, admitted that she was suffering from epilepsy from before marriage but her defence was that this was disclosed to the respondent's father before marriage. She also admitted that as a result of this, she suffered a fit of sudden loss of consciousness attended with convulsions. She, however, submitted that the disease was curable and if the respondent had given her proper treatment, she would have recovered. She denied that the respondent had spent any amount on her treatment. The learned trial Judge, on the basis of appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the appellant was suffering from epilepsy, which constituted a ground under S.13(1)(iii) of the Act. The learned Judge drew adverse inference against the appellant for her not appearing as a witness in the case. That is how, the decree for divorce was granted.

(3.) The question requiring consideration of this Court is whether case for divorce under S.13(1)(iii) of the Act has been made out on the basis of material on record? The provision reads as under:-