The main legal point established is that in divorce cases based on mental disorder and cruelty, the burden of proof lies with the party alleging the grounds for divorce, and the context of the allegations is crucial in determining their validity.

N.K.Sud, J.

1. Appellant-wife has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act) assailing the decree of divorce granted against her under Section 13 of the Act.

2. Respondent-husband had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act alleging that the appellant was of unsound mind and was suffering from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that he could not reasonably be expected to live with her. She was also charged with having treated him with cruelty and of deserting him.

3. The case set up by the husband was that he was married with the appellant on 30.11.1992 at Sohana, District Gurgaon. They resided together and cohabited till February, 1995. Thereafter, the appellant has been residing at her fathers house at Sohana and has not joined him as she prefers to stay there instead of her matrimonial home. In support of the allegations about the mental ailment of the appellant, it was stated that right from the beginning her behaviour was strange. She would suddenly stop taking meals for 2/3 days at a stretch, lock herself in a room, keep on sleeping continuously and would not talk to anyone nor attend to any household work at all. Her father was informed about her behaviour who in turn told that she sometimes suffered from, bouts of depression. He took her to Sohana in the month of February, 1993 and sent her back after a few days. It is further alleged that even thereafter there was no substantial improvement in her mental condition as she did not interact with the family members and used to become unconscious. She would stop talking and start staring in the blank and would not respond despite being called. She was also neglecting the household affairs. During this period, she became pregnant and her father took her to Sohana in the month of October, 1993 for the purpose of delivery. She gave birth to a female child on 20.11.1993. She returned to her matrimonial home with her child in December, 1993. It is alleged that even thereafter there was no improvement in the mental condition of the appellant who used to lock herself in a room for days together without caring to feed herself or the child. Her father took her to Sohana in February, 3994 from where she returned after a month in March, 1994. Thereafter also, has mostly stayed at her parental house at Sohana and returned to the matrimonial home in December, 1994. It is alleged that on 15.1.1995 her condition became serious and she started behaving in a strange manner. She locked herself and her young daughter in a room for two days continuously. She let her daughter cry repeatedly without paying any heed to her. She ultimately opened the door after a lot of persuasion and it was found that she was taking some drugs and tablets. On being confronted, she is stated to have revealed that she had been suffering from mental disorder for many years and had been taking medicines constantly. She is also stated to have admitted that she had been undergoing treatment for mental unsoundness at various places much prior to her marriage and that she had secretly got treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi in February, 1993. The respondent contacted her father and complained to him of not disclosing the appellants mental condition prior to her marriage. It was further claimed that the father begged forgiveness and admitted that he had concealed the said fact in order to marry her off. He assured that she was undergoing treatment and was improving slowly. He also assured that in case she does not recover fully, they can obtain divorce by mutual consent. It was with this understanding that the appellant returned to her fathers house in February, 1995 and took away all her clothes and ornaments, etc. Thereafter, the respondent and his father kept enquiring about her progress and were told that the treatment was going on. In the month of March, 1996, the respondent alongwith his father and some other respectable persons o