GOPAL CHANDRA LEKHARU Vs. SMT. HIRA LEKHARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1986 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Gauhati, in Divorce Title Suit No. 16 of 1983. The appeal has been filed by the petitioner as appellant under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for short 'the Act', read with Sec. 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

(2.) Both the appellant and the respondent got married on 9.5.1981 according to Hindu rites and the parties are governed by Dayabhag School of Hindu Law. It was a negotiated marriage. It is alleged that shortly after the marriage appellant saw the abnormal behaviour of the respondent as she started talking incoherently and picked up quarrels with other members of the family of the appellant and used to come out to the road talking in abusive and filthy languages about the petitioner and other members of the family and she had to be taken back home forcibly. The respondent was medically examined through Psychiatrist who opined that she was suffering from Schizophrenia of incurable type. It is also alleged that on 28.2.1983 the respondent finally left the house of the appellant and never returned. Other allegations against the behaviour of the respondent have been made in the present petition for divorce under section 13 of the Act. The petition was duly resisted by the respondent denying all the allegations. It is not disputed that the negotiated marriage was solemnised according to Hindu rites on 9.5.1981. It is stated that both the parties were living together at the house of the appellant and their marriage was consummated. It is alleged that the appellant caused miscarriage of the respondent by forcing her to take some tablets which affected her both physically and mentally. It is further alleged that in the month of Oct., 1981 both the parties went and stayed in the house of the respondent during Durga Puja and the appellant returned home earlier. But when the respondent returned to have husband's house, the appellant and the other members of his family treated her cruelly and rebuked her for not bringing sufficient articles as a dowry and also demanded a plot of land in the name of appellant at Gauhati from the father of the respondent. It is also stated that in the month of June, 1982 the respondent was asked to sign a blank paper for her divorce with the appellant which she refused. She was tortured to such an extent that she was not allowed to take bath in the bathroom, not supplied with proper food and sometimes she had to go without meals. She was also not allowed to talk with her brothers and other members of her family when they visited her. It is not disputed that the appellant got the respondent -medically examined by three doctors including two Psychiatrist. On 1.3.1983 after assaulting her the respondent was sent to her brother's house with the son of the elder brother of the father of the appellant. The respondent on three occasions went to the house of the appellant, but was not allowed to enter the house. It is alleged that there is no ground for divorce or judicial separation.

(3.) The learned District Judge framed as many as seven issues including the issue namely; whether the respondent was suffering from Schizophrenia? The learned trial court after considering the evidence on record came to the finding that the appellant failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the respondent was suffering from Schizophrenia and even if she suffered so from Oct. 1981 to Feb. 1982 she became alright after that period and there gives no scope for the husband to deny marital life with her. In view of the above finding the learned trial court dismissed the petition and hence the present appeal.