LAWS(HPH)-1976-11-8

SMT. SHANTI Vs. AMAR NATH

Decided On November 09, 1976
Smt. Shanti Appellant
V/S
AMAR NATH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Shanti Devi feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge dissolving her marriage with Shri Amar Nath Petitioner (who may hereinafter be called the Respondent) has filed this appeal.

(2.) The Respondent Shri Amar Nath was married to the Appellant on April 23, 1960, at Bhambota in Tehsil Dussuya, District Hoshiarpur. Two children - -one son and a daughter were born to the Appellant from the loins of the Respondent. According to the allegations made in the petition the Appellant had been incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of over three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition which was filed on 1 -5 -1970. The Appellant became unwell in the year 1965 and became of unsound mind. The Respondent tried his level best to give all sorts of treatment and medical aid to the Appellant but in spite of that there was no improvement in the Appellant. She was even taken to Amritsar and treated in the Mental Hospital in March 1967 but there was no improvement and she is suffering from an incurable disease of unsoundness of mind for the last five years. It was in the face of these facts that the Respondent prayed for a decree for divorce as envisaged under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(3.) The Appellant denied the allegation that she was insane and was suffering from an incurable disease. However, she admitted that she had been suffering from some disease which some times causes derangement of brain and it was due to the fact that if she had irregular menses then she got a fit of insanity and if the menses were regular then she was perfectly alright. She also admitted that she was admitted in the Mental Hospital, Amritsar, where she remained under treatment for a pretty long time. Further, she stated that even at the time when she filed the reply to the petition she was getting mental fits. However, her explanation was that those fits were as a result of irregularity of menstruation. She averred that the disease was not incurable and that the disease could be cured by spending a good deal of money and that the Respondent had refused to pay towards the expenses to be incurred on her treatment. On these averments she opposed the application for dissolution of marriage with the Respondent.