( 1 ). THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE judgment DATED 19th MARCH, 2001passed BY ADDITIONAL district JUDGE DISMISSING THE PETITION OF DIVORCE FILED by THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTIONS 13 (I-A) (III ).

( 2 ). THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND respondent WAS SOLEMNIZED ON 7th FEBRUARY, 1993 AS PER hindu RITES AND CEREMONIES. IT WAS AN INTER CASTE LOVE marriage. OUT OF THE SAID WEDLOCK NO CHILD WAS BORN. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT FROM THE FIRST DAY OF marriage, THE PETITIONER WAS TREATED WITH UTMOST CRUELTY i. E. MENTAL AS WELL AS PHYSICAL BY THE RESPONDENT AND HIS mother. PRIOR TO MARRIAGE, THE RESPONDENT WAS SUFFERING from MENTAL DISORDER AND IS A CASE OF PARANOID schizophrenia AND PSYCHOPATHIC DISORDER. HE WAS UNDER treatment OF DR. PREMA BALI WHO OPINED THAT RESPONDENT was UNABLE TO CARRY ON THE MARITAL RELATIONSHIP. HOWEVER, THE SAID FACT WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE appellant. AFTER MARRIAGE THE GRAVITY OF ILLNESS increased. THE MOTHER OF THE RESPONDENT USED TO INSTIGATE the RESPONDENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT BECAUSE OF WHICH HE used TO BECOME VIOLENT AND USED TO BEAT THE APPELLANT from TIME TO TIME. THE MARRIAGE COULD NOT CONSUMMATED. THE APPELLANT FILED A DIVORCE PETITION UNDER SECTIONS 13 (I-A) (III) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT FOR DISSOLUTION of MARRIAGE ON THE GROUNDS OF CRUELTY AND MENTAL DISORDER on 4th JULY, 1994, WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY ORDER DATED 19th MARCH, 2001. THE TRIAL COURT HELD THAT THE incidents OF CRUELTY AS EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT DO NOT come WITHIN THE SCOPE OF CRUELTY AS THE APPELLANT FAILED to GIVE SPECIFIC DATES OF INCIDENT AND DID NOT REPORT the MATTER TO THE POLICE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE of WITNESSES, THE TRIAL COURT FURTHER HELD THAT petitioner WAS NOT SUFFERING FROM PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIA disorder. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE APPELLANT HAS preferred THE PRESENT APPEAL.

( 3 ). THE APPELLANT ASSAILS THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON the GROUND THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT APPRECIATE THE uncontroverted EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER ON SEVERAL issues, WHICH PROVE THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THAT SHE was TREATED WITH CRUELTY AND ALSO THAT RESPONDENT WAS suffering FROM MENTAL DISORDER. IN HER STATEMENT, THE appellant DEPOSED ON OATH THAT SHE WAS BLAMED BY HER mother-IN-LAW FOR RESPONDENT s ILLNESS. THIS WAS NOT controverted BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE CROSS-EXAMINATION of THE PETITIONER. THIS PROVES THAT RESPONDENT WAS suffering WITH AN ILLNESS/ailment. THE TRIAL COURT further FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE THE MEDICAL RECORD, deposition AND MEDICAL DESCRIPTION OF RESPONDENT s disease, WHICH PROVES THAT RESPONDENT WAS SUFFERING FROM mental DISORDER. THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO APPRECIATE the UNREBUTED EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER THAT SHE WAS denied THE MATRIMONIAL BLISS OF PHYSICAL RELATION BY THE respondent BECAUSE OF HIS INCOMPETENCY, WHICH CONSTITUTED cruelty.

( 4 ). THE APPEAL IS OPPOSED BY THE RESPONDENT. IT IS contended THAT THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED TRIAL court IS A DETAILED AND REASONED JUDGMENT AND DOES NOT suffer WITH ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY. WHILE DELIVERING THE judgment, THE TRIAL COURT CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND circumstances OF THE CASE AND THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE PRESENT APPEAL LACKS BONAFIDE, IS PERVERSE, CONCOCTED and JUST TO HARASS AND HUMILIATE THE RESPONDENT. IT IS not MAINTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AS THE SAME HAS BEEN filed BY THE APPELLANT s FATHER ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGED power OF ATTORNEY, WHICH WAS NOT PRODUCED ALONG WITH appeal. THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 27th AUGUST, 2002 IS not LEGALLY TENABLE AS THE SAME WAS PREPARED AFTER FILING of THE APPEAL AND WAS EXECUTED IN NEW YORK BUT WITNESSED in INDIA AND ALSO NOTARIZED IN INDIA. UNDER HINDU marriage ACT, ANY PETITION/appeal ON THE BASIS OF POWER of ATTORNEY IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THE SUPREME COURT HAS held THAT IT IS NOT LIKE ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL SUIT WHERE provisions OF CPC CAN BE IMPLEMENTED STRICTLY. ANY proceedings UNDER HINDU MARRIAGE ACT IS BETWEEN HUSBAND and WIFE AND THE ONLY PARTIES WHICH THE COURT S