Alok Kumar Pandey, J.—The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.09.2017 and decree dated 07.10.2017 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur in Divorce Case No. 39 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case is that appellant/petitioner married with opposite party/ respondent on 20.04.2007 at the paternal house of the respondent. It is stated in the petition that respondent was feeble minded since childhood and her behaviour was not normal as she used to attack someone and the said unusual conduct made by the respondent was not intimated to the father of the appellant and marriage of respondent was solemnized with appellant by concealing the aforesaid fact. After marriage, the respondent/wife (Rita Devi) came to the house of the appellant and her behaviour was witnessed by appellant's side which was not normal. She started behaving in a strange way. Her behaviour was so unusual that she was presumed to be in intoxicated condition. Her strange behaviour was intimated to the father of the respondent who came there and after administering medicine, she became normal. It is stated that brother and father gave medicine to respondent and when query was made regarding the medicine taken by the respondent from the chemist, it is found that she was suffering from mental illness. It is further stated that respondent was taken by her father. On 20.04.2010, respondent was dropped at the house of the appellant. The appellant started treatment of respondent but her condition did not improve. On 06.03.2011, father and two brothers of respondent came to the house of the appellant and on 07.03.2011 they took away respondent and her jewellery and clothes. It is further averred that appellant remained mentally as well as physically worried due to lunatic behaviour of the respondent. It is further stated that no child has taken birth despite lapse of four years of marriage and appellant is facing danger of his life on account of cruel and lunatic behaviour of respondent.

3. Pursuant to the notice, respondent appeared and Court has taken effort for amicable settlement between both the parties but of no avail.

4. Respondent had filed written statement denying all the allegations regarding her mental condition. It has been stated that appellant has remarried with one Rinki Kumari and leading his conjugal life with her. It has been denied that behaviour of respondent is aggressive and she is suffering from madness. It has also been specifically denied that respondent was treated by any Neurologist. It has been submitted that on account of non fulfillment of demand of Alto Car, respondent was tortured in her matrimonial home and her husband solemnized marriage with Rinki Kumari. It has also been submitted that divorce case has been filed by the appellant on fabricated documents which is fit to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Family Court failed to appreciate the evidences of the witnesses produced on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel further submitted that the Family Court did not examine the documentary evidence produced by the appellant meticulously. Learned counsel further submitted that Family Court did not examine the genuineness of the document written by father of the respondent/opposite party. He further submitted that Family Court ignored the medical report produced on behalf of the appellant and all the evidences produced by the appellant categorically stated that respondent is a mental case.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent intends to reside with the appellant. Learned counsel further submitted that appellant has failed to prove the case on the basis of material available on record that respondent is mentally derailed. Learned counsel further submitted that there is nothing on re