Heard learned counsel for the appellant as also learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The petitioner-appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 3.10.2013, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag, in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 127 of 2006, whereby the petition, filed by the petitioner-appellant, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent with a decree of divorce, on the ground of mental illness of the respondent-wife, has been dismissed by the learned Court below.

3. The case of the petitioner-appellant, in brief, is that the sole respondent is his legally married wife and the marriage between them was solemnized on 17.6.2005 at Hazaribag, according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, both the appellant and the respondent were living together as husband and wife, but in the first night of the marriage itself, the petitioner found that she was suffering from throat problem and could not speak freely, as she used to stammer and he also found that she was mentally ill and suffering from mental retardation. The appellant made a complain to the brother of his wife, but he was threatened with dire consequences. It is also the case of the appellant that he also got his wife treated by a Doctor, who referred her for treatment to C.I.P., Kanke, Ranchi, and it was found that she was suffering from mental illness as she was mentally retarded and there was every chance of violent acts, which could be dangerous to the appellant. Thus on the grounds of mental illness of the respondent-wife, as also on the ground of fraud, at the time of contacting for the marriage, the petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was filed in the Court below.

4. Upon notice, the sole-respondent appeared and contested the suit. The case of the sole-respondent is that she was never suffering from any mental illness or any throat problem and she is absolutely a normal lady and after the marriage, she was living with her husband leading a conjugal life, but she was being subjected to torture and cruelty by the husband and his family members.

5. The Court below on the basis of averments of the parties have framed issues, in which, issue No. IV, is the main issue, which reads:-

"Whether the respondent has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent".

6. Evidences were adduced from both the sides, both oral as well as documentary, and eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant in the Court below, including the appellant himself and one doctor namely Dr. M. Jalil, who was examined as P.W.-7. Needless to state that the witnesses, examined on behalf of the appellant have stated that the respondent-wife was suffering from mental illness from the very beginning and the petitioner-appellant, who examined himself as P.W.-6, has gone to the extent of stating that his wife was suffering from mental retardation and her behavior was like insane person and in fact she was only half sane.

7. The Lower Court record shows that the documentary evidence, relating to the alleged mental illness of the sole-respondent were proved as Exhibit-1 and 1/1 by P.W.-7, Dr. M. Jalil and the other prescriptions relating to mental illness of the sole-respondent were also proved as Exhibits-2, , 2/1. The evidence of P.W.-7, Dr. M. Jalil, who had examined the respondent, shows that he has clearly stated in his cross-examination that the patient was not suffering from any mental disease and 'Haklana' (stammering) is not a disease.

8. The witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent in the Court below, have supported the case of respondent. The respondent was examined in the Court as R.W.-5 and she has been put to a lengthy cross-examination on two dates. During her cross-examination she has given co