GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant and the respondent are the husband and wife. The marriage between them was held on 10-3-1989 according to the Hindu rites and customs and they lived together as husband and wife at their permanent residence at Bansilalpet, Secunderabad. During the wedlock they begot two children namely Vikram and another child who were aged about 21/2 years and 4 months respectively at the time of filing of the above O. P. It is alleged by the appellant that the respondent-wife, who was suffering from mental disorder and attempted to commit suicide, and has not shown any interest though he made all endeavours to lead the happy married life. Her acts and behaviour, it is stated, are dangerous both to the appellant and the children and there is no safety as the respondent is suffering from Schizophrenia.

( 2 ) THE appellant-husband, therefore, filed O. P. No. 75 of 1991 before the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad at Secunderabad under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce on the ground that the respondent-wife was suffering from Schizophrenia-mental disorder.

( 3 ) THE respondent filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations that she was suffering from Schizophrenia. It is stated that she has spent happy married life with the appellant at Karimnagar and that she is hale and healthy. She further stated that when she was pregnant for second time in the month of November, 1990, she was compelled to leave the marital home at Karimnagar apprehending danger to her life and she sent her brother Rajendrakumar to bring minor child Vikram. It is stated that she is ready to lead the marital life subject to the assurance of safety to herself and her children. On the above pleadings both the parties have adduced both oral and documentary evidence. To substantiate the plea of mental disorder viz. , Schizophrenia, the appellant examined himself as P. W. 1, besides examining P. W. 2 - mother of the appellant, P. W. 3 maid servant in the house of the appellant, and P. W. 4 - Dr. K. Chandra Sekhar, Psychiatrist (examined through Commissioner) and marked Exs. A-1 to A-4. Under Ex. A-1 dated 19-2-1990, the respondent-wife under her own handwriting gave her family history on the letter head of the appellant. Ex. A-2 is a legal notice dated 2-6-1991 issued by the appellant to the respondent, Ex. A-3 is wedding invitation of the parties and Ex. A-4 is a letter dated 21-11-1990 written by the respondent to the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE respondent wife besides examining herself as R. W. 1 examined R. W. 2 her father and R. W. 3 friend of R. W. 2. Exs. X-1 and X-2 were marked by the Court.

( 5 ) THE Court below on appreciation of the evidence available on record held that the appellant failed to establish that the respondent-wife is suffering from mental disorder especially the schizophrenia and has abnormal behaviour, and dismissed the petition for grant of divorce.

( 6 ) ASSAILING the said judgment and decree, on various grounds, the appellant-husband has preferred this appeal.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Court below did not consider the evidence in proper perspective and that in the facts and circumstances of the case wrongly shifted the burden on the appellant. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the decision of this Court in Chiranjeevi v. Lavanya, AIR 1999 Andh Pra 316. It is to be stated that the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In that case decree of divorce was granted at the instance of husband, due to non-co-operative approach of the parties and there was no possibility of reunion and even if there was reunion, there was no guarantee that both husband and wife would live happily.

( 8 ) ON the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-wife maintained that the Court below on proper appreciation of the evidence was not inclined to grant divorce a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document