LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-202

NIDHI GOYAL Vs. VINOD GOYAL

Decided On May 07, 2015
Nidhi Goyal Appellant
V/S
Vinod Goyal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT -wife Nidhi has filed this appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.07.2007, rendered by Dr. Shiva Sharma, the then Additional District Judge, Panchkula, whereby, the divorce petition filed by the husband Vinod was accepted and the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are like this; that the parties were married on 28.06.1998 at Chandigarh. The marriage was a simple marriage and was duly consummated. However, no child was born out of this wedlock. As per respondent -husband, he came to know immediately after the marriage that appellant -wife is suffering from aggressive episode. On enquiry from the father of the appellant -wife, it became clear that she was suffering from aforesaid disease before marriage and was getting treatment from PGI. As per respondent -husband, the aforesaid disease of the appellant -wife was not disclosed to him either before or at the time of marriage. It was alleged that the disease of appellant -wife is incurable and she is of unsound mind. Even she did not co -operate the husband to have sexual relations with her. Many times she broke the cutlery/crockery of the house without any reason. She also went to the extent of damaging the television set. Once she took phenol and when this fact was brought to the notice of her parents, they stated that there was nothing to worry. It is further the case of the husband that the appellant -wife even does not know the brand names of Cold drinks. In the summer season, she used to sit in the sun for hours together and these acts created doubt in the mind of husband, who after investigation came to know that she was suffering from mental disorder and was getting treatment from PGI. He wanted to have record from PGI but the PGI authorities refused to give details of the treatment/disease suffered by the appellant -wife.

(3.) IT was further averred that the appellant - wife flatly refused to prepare tea for the relatives of the respondent -husband, whenever they visited them. She openly told that she would not do the household work.