( 1 ) THE appllant herein filed a petition seeking for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and mental disorder. It was alleged in the petition that the respondent after the solemnisation of marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty and that the respondent had been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that she could not be reasonable expected to live with the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE parties got married on 2. 5. 1982 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Both the parties were divorcees at the time of their marriage. However, there is is no child of the parties either from the present marriage or from the previous marriage. After marriage, the parties lived at Chandausi, District Moradabad, U. P. , and the said divorce petition was originally filed in the court of Civil Judge, Moradabad, U. P. in April,1989. Under the orders of the Supreme Court, the case was transferred to the Courts at Delhi.

( 3 ) AFTER the case was transferred to the Courts at Delhi, the respondent filed a written statement on 14. 8. 1992 controverting all the allegations levelled against her by her husband. She pleaded that she never behaved in the manner alleged. She also took up a defence that the appellant was a known case of alcoholism and had shattered the marital life of the parties. She also alleged that she was dealt with in a most cruel manner right on the very first night as well as thereafter because of the fact that her husband was an alcoholic and that because of his alcoholic habits she had not been able to conceive and that is how, admittedly, there is no child from the wedlock.

( 4 ) FILING of the aforsesaid written statement was followed by an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code by the appellant wherein the appellant sought for an amendment incorporating therein certain incidents of cruelty being on account of the alleged abuses, filthy language used and insult caused by his wife. The said application was allowed and the proposed amendment was incorporated in the petition by incorporating two specific dates and two specific incidents which was not pleaded in the original petition.

( 5 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, three issues were framed by the Trial Court which are in the following manner:-

(1) Whether the respondent has been incurable of unsound mind of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent?

(2) Whether the respondent is guilty of treating the petitioner with cruelty?

(3) Relief.

( 6 ) DURING the course of the trial, parties produced both oral and documentary evidence and on conclusion thereof, the Additional District Judge heard the counsel for the parties and thereafter by his judgment and decree dated 25. 8. 1995 dismissed the petition.

( 7 ) COUNSEL for the appellant during the course of his arguments submitted that the respondent hurled filthy abuses on the appellant as also on his mother and, therefore, the plea of mental cruelty was proved and the Trial Court acted illegally and committed error of law in holding that the said plea was not proved. It was also submitted that the intention of the respondent to leave her matrimonial home becomes apparent and clear for she admits execution of Ex. PW1/a which is a list of articles dated 24. 4. 1989. It was submitted that a bare perusal of the said list goes to prove that the respondent had collected all the articles including the bedding, spoons and jewellery, cloths etc. to break the matrimonial home with the intention of never returning back. He also submitted that the doctor examined as PW. 2 had issued a certificate which was proved during the trial as Ex. 2/a and had also deposed that the respondent was suffering from a disease called Obsessive Compulsive Neurosis and in rejecting the said certificate, the Trial Court committed error of law. Counsel for the appellant also stretche