ROSHAN LAL Vs. KAMLESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ROSHAN Lal son of Banarsi Das, husband, has filed the present FAO and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.4.1999 passed by the District Judge, Jind, who dismissed the petition of the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against his wife Kamlesh.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that marriage between the parties was solemnised on 13.3.1985 at Tohana as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage the parties resided together as husband and wife at Pillukhera Mandi, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. The marriage was consummated but no child was born out of the wedlock. The case of the appellant-petitioner made out in the trial Court was that he came to know that respondent-Kamlesh was a lady of unsound mind and that she had been suffering from intermittently mental disorder. On being enquired in this regard he and his parents were told by the respondent and her parents that Kamlesh was treated for her mental disorder prior to her marriage and doctors had said that she will get cured after some time. The petitioner and his parents believed this fact and the respondent continued to take medicines which were given by her parents. The behaviour of the respondent was abnormal and sometimes she used to be aggressive and violent also. Her conduct was irresponsible towards the petitioner, his parents and other relatives. The petitioner continued to tolerate all this hoping that with the passage of time she will get cured. He got her checked up from various medical experts including Dr. R.C. Garg of Rohtak in the year 1993. Dr. G.B. Adwani, Professor and Head of the Department of S.M.S. Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur diagnosed that the respondent was suffering from "Schizophrenia" and she was of incurable mind and she might become of sound mind to some extent only during brief intervals after taking medicines. The petitioner continued to get her treated, but there was no improvement. She used to abuse the petitioner, his parents and other relatives. She would laugh, cry, sing and dance in the presence of his relatives and friends without any occasion. Her such conduct/behaviour caused mental cruelty to the petitioner. Finding no other alternative he convened a Panchayat of respectables of Pillukhera, Tohana, Jind, Safidon and Panipat etc. on 21.9.1985. Both the parties appointed Laxmi Chand of Safidon, Badlu of Jind, Prem of Tohana, Hukam Chand of Pillukhera and Phool Chand of Panipat as arbitrators, who, after making enquiries from both the parties, directed the petitioner to get the respondent medically examined from Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. Accordingly, he got her medico legally examined in the said hospital. The concerned psychiatrist of the hospital namely Dr. H.K. Matai diagnosed that she was suffering from "Schizophrenia". After keeping the respondent under observation as an indoor patient from 8.2.1995 to 23.2.1995, he prescribed certain medicines to her. She was given six doses of ECT. The said doctor was of the opinion that she was of incurable unsound mind. In view of this fact, the arbitrators directed that the petitioner should keep the respondent at Jind and the mother of the respondent would also stay with them for looking after her. Accordingly, the parties and mother of respondent started living at Jind. They lived at Jind from 10.6.1995 to 1.4.1996. The mental disorder of the respondent did not get cured and her behaviour remained the same. The mother of the respondent took her to Tohana after telling that she would return to Jind after a fortnight. After a fortnight the parents of the respondent told the petitioner in reply to a telephonic enquiry made by him that there was no improvement in her mental condition and she was still suffering from mental disorder. After verifying these facts from both the parties, the arbitrators held a meeting at Tohana on 4.8.1996 for deciding the controversy. They heard both the parties and decided that due to mental disorder of the respondent it was not possible for the petitioner to live with her. They suggested that the petitioner should seek divorce from the respondent. They further held that in spite of the petitioner and his parents having done their best to get the respondent treated for her mental disorder, there had been no improvement as her mental disorder was incurable. With these allegations the petitioner has sought the divorce.

(3.) THE learned trial Court framed the following issue for the diposal of the petition :-