Judgment

VENKATACHALIAH, J. :- This appeal, in a matrimonial cause, is by the husband, and is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 29-10-1986, of High Court of Allahabad in First Appeal No. 493 of 1984 : (reported in 1987 All LJ 483), allowing the respondent-wifes appeal and reversing the decree of dissolution of marriage dated 31-7-1984 granted by the Second Additional District Judge, Jhansi, in Original Suit No. 34 of 1983 on his file.

Appellants suit for a decree of dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground envisaged in S. 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act), that respondent suffered from a mental-disorder of such a kind that rendered respondent unfit for married-life and that petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with her, had been decreed by the Court of first instance but dismissed by the High Court in appeal. Appellant-husband has come-up by Special Leave.

2. The marriage between appellant, Ram Narain Gupta, and respondent, Rameshwari Gupta, was solemnised on 17-6-1979 at Jhansi, The suit for the dissolution of the marriage was filed on 14-7-1983 on the allegation that the wife was a schizophrenic. The High Court, while holding it probable that the wife did suffer from some such a mental-disorder, however, was persuaded to the view that appellant had not established the requisite extent and degree of the mental-disorder recognised by law as constituting a legal justification for the dissolution of the marriage. In the suit appellant had also alleged that the respondent was of unsound mind even before the marriage and that this fact had been concealed from him at the time of the marriage. This alternative case that the marriage was itself induced by the suppression of the material facts pertaining to the mental-state of the bride and that, accordingly, the marriage required to be annulled was, however, not pressed before the High Court.

3. In his suit appellant pleaded that the respondent suffered from a mental-disorder, psychiatrically recognised as schizophrenia, which was of such severity as to render respondent unsociable and given to violent propensities, that the wife had been treated by the doctors at the Department of Psychiatry at the Medical College, Jhansi, and that despite competent professional treatment the mental condition of respondent continued to deteriorate to the point of making manifest in her suicidal tendencies and aggressive violent behaviour towards others. Appellant, therefore, averred that the mental-disorder of the respondent was of such a kind and to such extent that appellant could not reasonably be expected to live with respondent as man and wife.

Respondent in her written statement denied the imputation of insanity and commission of several overt acts indicative of mental-disorder alleged against her and contended that appellants determination to get rid of her was attributable to the domestic discard between her on the one side and the mother, and sisters of the appellant on the other. Indeed, she also entered the witness-box to testify to and substantiate her defence. She was subjected to searching cross-examination.

4. The trial Court framed the necessary and material issues stemming from the pleadings. On his side, appellant called a certain Dr. Ganesh Datt Shukla, (P.W. 1) Head of the Dept. of Psychiatry, Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College to support his version. Appellant himself tendered evidence as P.W. 2. He also examined a certain Gyasi Ram (P.W. 3) said to be an artisan who claimed that during one of his visits to appellants house for some odd job, he had seen respondent beating-up small children and conducting herself in a disorderly manner. Appellant also called a certain Janki Prasad (P.W. 4) said to be the private-home-teacher of appellants nephews. P. W. 4 spoke to what, according to him, were oddities in the behaviour of the respondent and of her violent propensities. Appellant in order to show that respondent was a viole