HARMANJIT KAUR Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH GILL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of marriage by way of granting decree of divorce. It has been averred that the marriage between the spouses was solemnised on 14.10.1989 according to Sikh marriage rites at village Ramdas, tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar. Upon solemnization of the marriage both of them lived together and the marriage was duly consummated. From this wedlock, one male child was born who is stated to be residing with the petitioner-respondent. It is alleged that soon after the marriage the petitioner-respondent came to know that the respondent-appellant is suffering from some kind of mental disorder as she always used filthy language towards his parents, she was not in a position to prepare meals and also cooperative for matrimonial obligations. It is further alleged that whenever the petitioner-respondent asked her to have sexual intercourse she would start raising noise and the petitioner-respondent was denied the fulfilment of the matrimonial obligations. The factum of mental disorder suffered by the respondent-appellant was concealed from the petitioner-respondent by her parents. The respondent was taken to the doctor in the Psychiatric Department but she could not be fully cured. Various opinions were taken from other Doctors, Specialists but the consistent opinion rendered was that she is not curable. One such doctor referred to is Dr. Bhagwant Rai and also a doctor from Psychiatric Department from S.G.T.B. Hospital, Amritsar and that she had been taken to the OPD and upon examination the same opinion was given by the doctor. She was checked by the doctor at Mental Hospital, Amritsar vide OPD No. 52847 (PMH) dated 24.2.1992 where Dr. Dhillon categorically opined that she is suffering from mental disorder. She has been subjected to electric shocks but of no avail. She was taken to Dr. Goverdhan Dass Satya Parkash Mental Hospital at Tappa in the month of August 1993 and the similar opinion was given by the doctor.

(2.) THE respondent-appellant always wanted the petitioner to be around her because she was afraid of the fact that somebody might abduct her. In delirious state of mind she would sometimes take off her clothes and run to the streets and every time she was brought back by the petitioner to the house, such acts were rather embarrassing. On one occasion she took kerosene oil but due to timely medical help, she was saved. It is also alleged that she tried to commit suicide and on every such occasion she was saved by one person or the other. The behaviour of the appellant respondent has not been very congenial and that in abriated state of mind committed such acts which were intolerable and were rather embarrassing. The petitioner-respondent made numerous efforts to get her cured by taking medical help/advice, opinions and treatments but of no avail. The child was born as the marriage was duly consummated but subsequently she had denied the matrimonial obligations. On various occasions, she had completely neglected to look after the child and sometimes it became dangerous to leave the child along with her, she fell into fits of delirium.

(3.) THE petitioner-respondent produced Dr. Joginder Singh Dhillon as AW1 the Psychiatrist who was posted at Mental Hospital, Amritsar, at the relevant time when he has examined the respondent-appellant and had diagnosed that she is suffering from suspected residual schizophrenia anxiety and depression. She had been accordingly put on medicines and she was examined on 29.2.1992 and had been advised to undergo a test i.e. ECT. She had been subjected the electric shocks on February 29, 1992 and thereafter again on March 4, 1993. The treatment was given of the suspected mental illness. Another Dr. i.e. Dr. Pammi Singh has been produced as AW3 who has corroborated the fact that he had examined the respondent-appellant on February 29, 1988 and that he had recorded the case history of respondent-appellant in the file of the hospital. He has corroborated that she has been suffering from schizophrenia and that the prescribed treatment had been advised. It has been deposed that such disease can be controlled by medicines but is not completely curable. The file has been maintained by the hospital and is exhibited as Ex. AW3/A. He had also examined her on April 30, 1994 and the requisite medicines had been prescribed. The prescription slip has been exhibited as Ex. AW3/2. He has stated that she had recovered significantly by the treatment given to her but so far as her thinking is concerned it is still not clear. He has categorically opined that she is not completely curable. Hakim Mela Ram has been examined as AW4 who has deposed that he had given treatment to the respondent-appellant in the year 1992 and that the patient i.e. respondent- appellant cannot be completely cured. He has produced the relevant register and that the entries have been exhibited as Ex. AW4/A and the prescription as Ex. AW4/B. Likewise some other witnesses have also been examined from the hospitals and otherwise who have proved the factum of mental disorder being suffered by the respondent-appellant. A number of other witnesses have been produced who have proved the abnormal behaviour of the respondent-appellant on one occasion or the other. The brother of the petitioner-respondent i.e. Manjit Singh has appeared as AW12 and he has categorically stated that he had never ever misbehaved with the respondent. He has been subjected to cross- examination but no meaningful or corroborative facts have been elicited to establish the factum of his misbehaviour towards the respondent-appellant on the alleged date. The respondent-appellant has appeared as her own witness as RW1 and has denied all the allegations. In fact, she has stated that she is a very well educated person and that she had never ever suffered any mental disorder. It may be noticed that she has not produced any evidence to demolish the medical evidence and the experts like Doctors produced by the petitioner-respondent. She has also not been able to demolish the facts established in pursuant to the documentary evidence produced by the Doctors and otherwise. However, the father of the respondent-appellant has appeared as witness i.e. RW5 and has supported the pleadings of the respondent- appellant. However, no one has been able to deny the visit to the hospitals including the mental hospital and the medical treatment rendered by the doctors. Surprisingly, the respondent-appellant while being subjected to cross-examination denied her own hand writing and also the handwriting of her father and has categorically denied that any correspondence was entered into between the respondent-appellant, her family with the petitioner and his family. She has not been able to identify the signatures of her father or cannot understand the writing as contained in Ex. AW13/3 and Ex. AW13/4. She was unable to identify her own handwriting upon the letter written by her which has been exhibited as Ex. AW13/9. She has denied that she had ever been taken to the hospital or to the Doctor for medical examination. She has also denied the medical cards made in various hospitals and also the clinics of the Doctors.