MEENA DEVI Vs. UMESH KUMAR VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, at the instance of the appellants, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.4.1993 and 26.4.1993 respectively passed in Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 20/89, whereby and whereunder the learned 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi decreed the title (matrimonial) suit and passed a decree of divorce.

(2.) CASE of the plaintiff -respondent in brief is that plaintiff - respondent is the husband of appellant No. 1 Meena Devi and marriage between both of them was solemnised on 17.6.1981 at Church Road, Gudri, Ranchi according to Hindu rites and after solemnization of marriage appellant No. 1 was brought to her sosural by plaintiff -respondent and on the very day of suhagrat plaintiff - respondent came to know that his wife appellant No. 1 is behaving like a child, although she was aged about 20 years on the date of suhagrat and was a mentally retarded lady. When this fact was brought to the parents of the appellant No. 1 then respondent was assured that this is a curable disease and she will be cured within a year and on the basis of that assurance she used to be sent to her naihar for treatment and when appellant No. 1 was again sent to her sasural on the plea that she has now recovered from the disease but in her sosural she always behaved like a 7 years ' child and in this way about 8 years passed and there was no consummation of marriage. Appellant No. 1 was examined by a doctor, who after examination, submitted a report that she is suffering from incurable form of disease and she is virgin still then. Plaintiff -respondent then filed the aforesaid title (matrimonial suit in which appellants appeared and filed written statement stating, inter alia, therein that application for divorce under clause 13(iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not maintainable. It was further alleged that this application for -divorce has been filed as a counter blast to the complaint lodged by the appellant No. 1 and her father before the police for illtreatment made by plaintiff -respondent and his family members and there was a denial that appellant No. 1 is a victim of mental disorder and incomplete development of mind. She behaves normal in normal condition and so her treatment in mental hospital does not arise. On the other hand allegation has been levelled against the plaintiff -respondent that he and his family members demanded Rs. 25,000.00 as dowry and when their demand was not fulfilled they assaulted appellant No. 1 and lodged an information to the police and a case is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

(3.) 6 witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff - respondent and three witnesses were examined on behalf of the opposite parties -appellants. After considering the evidence recorded on behalf of both the sides, the learned Court below came to a finding and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff -respondent.