To grant a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, it must be proved that the spouse is of unsound mind to an extent that the complaining spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other spouse.

SNEH PRASHAR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19th March, 2008 by virtue of which the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”) filed by appellant-husband Sher Singh against his wife-respondent Manju Kanwar for dissolution of their marriage was dismissed.

2. The facts which need reference are as under:-

Appellant-petitioner Sher Singh was married to respondent-Manju Kanwar on 09.05.2005 in village Pilod according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage, she resided at her matrimonial home with the appellant in village Shyampur. As per averments of the appellant, after marriage the respondent stayed at her matrimonial home only for one day and during that period the marriage was not consummated, rather the respondent behaved like an insane person. When her brother came to take her, he was informed about her behaviour, on which he told him (appellant) that the respondent had never done any work at her parental home and now gradually she would learn doing household work.

3. The appellant pleaded that 3-4 times he went and brought the respondent to the matrimonial home and on each occasion she stayed with him for five days or maximum for ten days. However, the marriage could not be consummated despite efforts from his side as there was no response from her. She would also not do any household work and would throw the utensils when in the kitchen. On being assigned any work, she would start weeping and would tore her clothes. She even threw the bedding and tried to put the same on fire. She had some mental disorder and he had been married to her by fraud.

4. It was further pleaded by the appellant that he got the respondent treated from Pilani hospital but she could not be cured. The doctor informed him that she was a mentally challenged person and the disease was incurable. She would become unconscious and sometimes would go to the street and raise shouts. If anyone tried to make her understand, she would try to beat that person. On 12.04.2004, when he was not present at home, the respondent took all the jewellery given to her by his family and went to her parental home without informing him or his family members.

5. On the above grounds, the appellant sought dissolution of his marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce.

6. The respondent contested the petition. In the written statement filed by her, she controverted each and every allegation levelled by the appellant and pleaded that their marriage was consummated and they had been living as husband and wife. After marriage, when she went to her parental home, the appellant and his family demanded more dowry from them. She was harassed and maltreated as she was unable to fulfill their demand. The petitioner was working in Hero Honda Company and as and when he used to come home, he used to give her beatings. A criminal complaint under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was filed by her against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pilod (Rajasthan).

7. The respondent assertively submitted that she is hale and hearty, well behaved and of a sound mind. She is proficient in kitchen work. She and her parents did not conceal anything from the appellant. He saw her prior to marriage and it was only after he was satisfied that the marriage was solemnized. Raising legal objections with regard to maintainability of the petition, cause of action and concealment of facts etc. by the petitioner, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were settled. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. Considering the evidence and the arguments addressed, learned trial Court, dismissed the petition.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2008, the appellant preferred the instant appeal.

10. We have heard the submissions made by Mr. J.P. Sharma, learned counsel for