PRIYAMBADA PANI @ PANI Vs. SAROJ KUMAR PANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two connected civil appeals arise out of a common Judgment dated 20.9.2001 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack disposing of Civil Proceeding No. 176 of 1998 filed by Sri Saroj Kumar Pani under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve the marriage by decree for divorce on the ground of unsound -mind of the wife -Respondent No. 1 -Smt. Priyambada Pani as well as Civil Proceeding No. 366 of 1998 filed by Smt. Priyambada Pani and her minor daughter Kumari Subhshri Pani -Petitioners under Ss. 18 & 20 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 seeking maintenance.

(2.) Both the aforesaid proceeding were disposed of by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack by a common Judgment dated 20.9.2001 by issuing a decree for divorce Subject to payment of Rs. 1,25,000/ - to the wife towards permanent alimony and a sum of Rs. 75,000/ - towards maintenance of the minor daughter -Subhashri Pani. In Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2001 Smt. Priyambada Pani has sought to challenge both the decrees for divorce as well as for enhancement of maintenance. In Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2001 Sri Saroj Kumar Pani (Husband) has sought to challenge the quantum of maintenance directed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack.

(3.) Mr. R.C. Das, learned Counsel appearing for Appellant Smt. Priyambada Pani @ Rout in C.A. No. 36 of 2001 submitted that learned Judge, Family Court has committed gross error of law by placing reliance on the medical opinion of the Psychiatrists without putting their opinion to rigorous test and thereby failed to have an independent Judgment on the contentious issue of the alleged insanity of the Appellant. Therefore, he contends that there is no conclusive material on record to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant -Priyambada was suffering from mental disorder of Schizophrenia, which was incurable and that the mental disorder was of such an extent that the husband and wife could not lead a normal conjugal life together. Learned Counsel for the Appellant -Priyambada further submitted that mere opinion of the doctors that the Appellant had positive signs of aggressiveness, arrogance, excitement and assaultiveness without assigning any positive reasons these cannot lead to a safe conclusion that the Appellant suffers from Schizophrenia of an incurable form.