RAM PARKASH Vs. VIJAY KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.9.1992 of the learned District Judge, Solan in Case No. H.M. Petition No. 13 /S/3 of 1992. By the impugned judgment, the petition filed by the present appellant husband against the respondent wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed. The ground for divorce was that respondent had been incurably of unsound mind and had been suffering continuously from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. The petition was dismissed by the impugned judgment, hence the present appeal.

(2.) IT is not disputed that the parties were married to each other on 10.5.1986 according to Hindu rites and they lived and cohabited together as husband and wife for a short period at village Kanshi Patta, Tehsil Kandaghat. Though in the petition it has been alleged that no issue was born yet we find from the evidence on record that it is an admitted fact that respondent gave birth to two children through the present petitioner appellant but both the children did not survive. According to appellant petitioner, the respondent was an idiot/lunatic at the time of the marriage and she continued to be so till the date of filing the present petition. As stated above, according to the petitioner appellant, respondent wife was suffering from mental disorder to such an extent that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with her. It has also been stated in the petition that the mental state of affairs of the respondent was suppressed from the petitioner before marriage and he came to know of this fact only after marriage. It has further been stated that mental disorder of the respondent could not be cured inspite of continuous treatment. The petition was resisted by the respondent wife. She denied the allegation that she was suffering from mental disorder and averred that she had always been normal and acting in normal manner. According to her the present petition has been filed only to get rid of her so that the petitioner appellant could marry another girl.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for the respondent.