The central legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence did not support the claim that the respondent's mental illness made it impossible for the petitioner to lead a normal conjugal life.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mr. Samir Kr. Lall, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Purnendu Sharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.05.2018 passed by Sri Satya Prakash Sinha, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum in Original Suit No. 364 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been dismissed.

3. For the sake of convenience both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status in the learned court below.

4. The petitioner (appellant herein) had preferred a suit u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent (respondent herein) in which it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 24.02.2012 as per Hindu rites and customs at Adityapur Housing Colony, Road No.- 06, P.O.- Adityapur, P.S.- R.I.T., District-Seraikella Kharsawan. The respondent after her marriage started residing at her matrimonial house from 29.02.2012 situated at Bagbera Colony, Jamshedpur. On arrival of the respondent in her matrimonial house her behavior was found to be abnormal and she sometimes become aggressive and extended threats of committing suicide and implicating her in-laws in a criminal case. The behavior of the respondent forced the petitioner to complain to the brother of the respondent who was present and who had some medicines with him which was administered to the respondent at which she became normal. When the petitioner asked the respondent to take medicines again, she became furious and started pressurizing her brother as according to her the petitioner and his family members were mad with whom she cannot adjust. It has been stated that on a query made by the petitioner the brother of the respondent disclosed that the respondent is a patient of schizophrenia for long and her treatment is going on which was suppressed by the relatives of the respondent at the time of marriage. It has been stated that the respondent gradually started creating disturbances in various ways as she used to get up between 11:30 A.M. and 12:00 P.M., she used to avoid the deal household chores and used to be busy continuously over phone conversing with her relatives. It has been stated that the respondent also used to sometimes sing and dance in presence of her in-laws and also in her bedroom and thereafter she used to cry. All efforts made by the petitioner and his family members to convince the respondent not to indulge in such type of behavior proved futile. It has also been stated that the respondent used to assault the aged mother of the petitioner and damaged household articles. The petitioner had taken the respondent to Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur, Jila Mansik Swasthya Kendra and Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi but no moral or physical support was extended to the petitioner by the family members of the respondent and they had also refused to keep the respondent with them. It has been stated that one of the brothers of the respondent namely, Santosh Kumar Mishra who is a permanent employee of the Railways had come to the house of the petitioner and at the time of his departure the petitioner had narrated the conduct of the respondent to him at which the petitioner was subjected to abuse and the petitioner was asked to bear the entire responsibility of the respondent. The respondent had also not permitted the petitioner to have physical relationship with her and, therefore, in spite of considerable lapse of time he was not blessed with any child. It has been stated that on account of the pressure created by the respondent the petitioner was forced to drop her at her parental house and since then both are living separately.

5. The respondent on being noticed had filed a written statement wherein she has denied the allegations leveled aga