The judgment emphasizes the need for specific and substantiated allegations in divorce cases, and the requirement to prove mental disorder in cases seeking divorce on such grounds.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

K.S.MUDAGAL,J. - Aggrieved by dismissal of his petition for divorce, the petitioner in M.C.No.95/2007 on the file of the Family Court, Mysore has preferred this appeal.

2. The appellant filed M.C.No.95/2007 under Sec. 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short) before the trial Court seeking decree for dissolution of marriage.

3. For the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.

4. The petitioner filed M.C.No.95/2007 against the respondent before the trial Court seeking decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. That was contested by the respondent. At the first instance, by the judgment dtd. 25/2/2010 the trial Court dismissed the said petition with cost of Rs.5,000.00 holding that the alleged cruelty and desertion were not proved.

5. The petitioner challenged that judgment before this Court in M.F.A.No.2755/2010 (FC). This Court by judgment dtd. 6/6/2012 set aside the judgment and decree and remanded the matter to the trial Court to enable the petitioner and the respondent both to adduce further evidence before the trial Court. While so remanding this Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.25,000.00 as litigation expenses payable to the respondent.

6. After such remand, the trial Court recorded further evidence. Again by the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the grounds alleged were not proved.

7. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

(i) After marriage, for sometime they led happy marital life. Thereafter the respondent started showing hostile attitude towards the petitioner, his sister, mother and brother. She was not showing any responsibility of taking care of his aged and infirm mother. Whenever his sister or brother visited his house, the respondent used to be very unfriendly and creating hostile atmosphere in the family. Therefore they stopped visiting his house. Due to which the petitioner was hurt and disappointed. He tolerated that in the interest of family. Later, she started showing hostile attitude against him also. She used to loose her temper and behave in an unruly manner. She was threatening him that she would commit suicide. She even confessed before him that prior to marriage she made unsuccessful attempts of committing suicide. Her such conduct was due to psychiatric imbalance. Whenever the petitioner's brother or sister called him on phone or visited their house, she used to pick up quarrel and abuse him in foul language. On one such occasion, the respondent left the house abruptly without intimating any family members causing severe anxiety and panic to him and his family members. He was forced to search and bring her back.

(ii) In June 2004, when the petitioner was preparing for promotional interview, instead of cooperating with him, the respondent picked up quarrel with him and left the matrimonial home abusing him. She used to be violent. On one occasion when she was asked to switch off the light, she became violent and broke the switch, thereby her bangles were broken. Threatening to commit suicide by broken bangle piece she cut her wrist causing bleeding injury. On another occasion, when both of them had gone to some public restaurant, she picked up quarrel in the presence of public shouting loudly and causing him humiliation. She never attended to any household work. She had attention deficit disorder. Suppressing that fact, the marriage was performed. She used to be rude, throw things at him violently and lock herself in the room of the house stating that she would commit suicide.

(iii) On 1/8/2004, the petitioner got issued notice to the mother and the sister of the respondent informing them about the behaviour of the respondent. Though such notice was served, they did not respond. The respondent left his house on 1/8/2004 and did not return to join him, despite his attempt. Thereby the respondent i