Important points:
The appellant has been incurably of unsound mind as required to be proved by Section 10(1)(iii) of the Act. The essential ingredient to be proved for securing an order of dissolution of marriage under the above clause is that the mental illness shall be of such a nature that it is incurable. No medical opinion of a medical expert is coming forth in this case to establish that the illness which the appellant is suffering from, is incurable

JUDGMENT :

T.V. ANILKUMAR, J.

1. The wife before the Family Court, Ernakulam in O.P. No. 1268 of 2008 is the appellant. She challenges the order passed by the Family Court, dissolving her marriage with the respondent/husband.

2. The appellant was married to respondent on 06.01.1992 in accordance with the Christian religious rites and customs. A girl child born to the spouses was studying in 6th standard on the date of institution of the original petition.

3. The contention of the respondent in O.P. No. 1268 of 2008 is that immediately after the marriage, he noticed the appellant to be suffering from some sort of mental disease and behaving in abnormal manner towards him and the family members. She was for that reason treated in Mental Hospital, Vishranthi Centre in Mundkapadam Mandiram Hospital, Manganam, Kottayam. It was only then he learned that she was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and it started even before marriage for which she had been treated in General Hospital, Rourkela, where her father was employed. Though the respondent found it very difficult to lead a normal matrimonial life with her, he hoped that she would soon recover from the illness and accordingly, he took her to Tamil Nadu, where he was employed in Naiveli Lignite Corporation and the spouses and child lived there till 1995. Thereafter, they came to Doha and after living there till 2000, they lastly came down to Mangalore. In all these places, she was treated for Paranoid Schizoprenia. It is also his contention that she treated him with cruelty throughout and it has not been possible for him to lead a normal life with her. She failed to discharge her duties as a wife and take care of own child. She was often indifferent to him and others and was unreasonably suspicious of him. In 2005, he made his intention very clear with her father that he could no longer lead a matrimonial life with her and therefore, he needed to dissolve the marriage. Her father agreed and since then, the appellant has been staying with her father.

4. He contends that the minor girl child has been looked after by him all these years and she is still with him. Alleging the grounds of cruelty and also that the appellant has been suffering from mental disorder, the respondent filed the present original petition under Section 10(1)(iii) and (x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short ‘the Act’). Alternatively, he also sought for a declaration that the marriage with the appellant was null and void, since she was suffering from mental disease at the time of marriage.

5. The respondent denied all the allegations made against her and contended that she is a normal person ably leading a normal matrimonial life with the appellant. She has never failed in her matrimonial duties for any reason and she had been taking care of the child very well. But, the child was removed from her custody under false pretext that she was suffering from some mental illness. She contended that it was the respondent, who treated her with cruelty, which included physical harassments also. He used to pick up quarrels with her unreasonably and treated her like a slave denying rest in her life. She was forced to work all the time even when she was physically ill and further, he had misappropriated her gold and valuables also. Her negligible behavioural problems were exaggerated and presented before the Doctors as acts amounting to mental illness and accordingly, medical records were manipulated. She denied the allegation that she was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and the marriage to be null and void for the alleged reason. The allegations of cruelty were also denied.

6. The court below examined the respondent as PW-1 and his father as PW-2. Among Exts.A1 to A11 marked, except Ext.A1 marriage certificate, all other documents are medical records produced for proving treatments received by the appellant in different hospitals in connection with her mental illness. On the side of appellant, she did not mount the