In order to obtain a divorce on the ground of unsoundness of mind, the petitioner must prove that the respondent is suffering from a mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.

R.N.Sahay, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred under Sec. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 whereby the appellant-husband has challenged the decree in the Matrimonial Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Sec. 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties were married at and started living with her husband at Birsanagar in the town of Jamshedpur. A child was also borne out of the wed-lock.

2. The husbands case is that respondent was suffering from unsoundness of mind which according to the appellant was evident from the fact that she was once admitted at Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi where she was treated by Dr. A.B. Mukherjee for psychopathic disorder and in support of that relevant documents were filed before the court Below. The appellant alleged that the respondent became dangerously lunatic. She even attempted to strangulate her child. The husband cited instances of abnormal behaviour of respondent from which it is established that she was suffering from mental illness.

3. That allegations made by the husband in his application for dissolution of marriage has been strongly refuted by the wife in her written statement. The respondent alleges that from the very day she went to her husbands place, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law made sarcastic remarks about her. After two days she returned to her fathers place and narrated the incident which happened in her in-laws place Her parents asked her to cool down hoping the matters should get settled in course of time. She again returned to her in-laws place but had to several humiliation in the hands of her mother-in-law and sister-in-law who always found different fault with each and every action of the respondents. She became pregnant in the mean time and returned to her parents house. The appellant or his parents did not brother for the welfare of the respondent and did not care to call her back. The brother and uncle of the respondent went to the appellants house and requested them to bring. respondent back but the request was turned down on some pretext. She was not brought back with some ill motive. In December 1995 a male child was born to the respondent. Intimation of the birth was given to the appellant but no body came to see the respondent and her son. However, on 30.3.1986 some relation of the appellant took respondent to Jamshedpur where she was subjected to mental and physical torture. Even she was not allowed to meet any person in the neighbourhood. Even the brother of the respondent was not allowed to meet her. She was allegedly kept confined in a small dark room for two days without food and water ultimately she was rescued and brought by her brother to Ranchi. All these happened due to inability of the respondentsv parents to give Rs. 25,000.00 cash as dowry to the appellant. The respondent holds the sister of the appellant and his uncle responsible for spoiling the matrimonial life of the parties.

4. The learned Addl. District Judge having analysed the evidence adduced by the parties reached to the following conclusion in para 12 of his judgment:

12. After going through the oral and documentary evidence on record as discussed above I find that allegations as made by the applicant against the respondent are not cogent and credible. The medical ground of mental sickness of the respondent by the appellant is not a such ground to as to fulfil the conditions as enumerated under Sec. 13(1)(III) of the Hindu Marriage Act so as to dissolve the marriage between the parties and to grant a decree for divorce to the applicant. It is also clear that mental torture was caused hardship by the applicant. Accordingly these issues are decided against the applicant and in favour of it respondent.

The application was accordingly rejected without costs.

5 The finding of the learned Judge is dismissing the petition of the appellant has been assailed before me by Shri N.K. Prasad learned Counsel for the appellant inter alia on the gro