The central legal point established in the judgment is that a treatable mental disorder may not justify the dissolution of a marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

1. The appellant-wife Smt. Nisha @ Renuka has filed this appeal challenging judgment and decree dated 29.8.2013 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa vide which a petition filed by respondent-husband Rakesh Kumar under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been accepted and the marriage between the parties has been dissolved by passing a decree of divorce.

2. The case set up by respondent-husband, as per his petition under Section 13 of the Act, is that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.2.2007 at Dabwali as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and they resided together at village Lohgarh in Tehsil Dabwali and a male child was born out of the wedlock on 30.12.2007. It is averred that after marriage, the appellant-wife came to matrimonial home and stayed for two days and during her stay she displayed behaviour of unsoundness of mind and then went to her parental home on 18.2.2007 and returned in the first week of March 2007. It is averred that after marriage, the respondent-husband discovered that the appellant-wife is a patient of chronic disease i.e. Bio Polar Affective Disorder or Mamie Depressive Illness (M.D.I.) which is associated with Schizophrenia, and that she was under treatment of Dr. Bir Singh Yadav at Hisar. It is averred that after delivery of child on 30.12.2007, the appellant-wife became irritable, sleepless, demanding and did not take care of the child and used to ask for colourful dresses, ornaments and her mood became erratic. It is also averred that on 23.4.2008, the respondent-husband dropped the appellant-wife at her parental home at Jamalpur, Tehsil Hansi and since then she has been residing there with her parents. The respondent-husband thus set up a case that the appellant-wife was suffering from mental disorder of such a kind that the petitioner is not expected to live with her and that she had also threatened to commit suicide.

3. The appellant-wife in reply to the petition under Section 13 of the Act denied that she was suffering from any mental disorder as alleged by the petitioner. She denied having ever attempted to commit suicide. The appellant-wife took a stand that in fact the behaviour of the respondent-husband and of his mother was arrogant and that her mother-in-law was obstinate and greedy type of person and had been harassing, humiliating, taunting, beating and torturing her for want of more dowry and that she had been turned out from her matrimonial home on 9.6.2009.

4. The respondent-husband filed replication denying the stand taken by the appellant-wife, while reiterating the averments made in the petition. The parties were put to proof on the following issues:-

i. Whether the respondent has been suffering continuously/intermittently from mental disorder, as alleged? OPP

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce by getting his marriage with respondent dissolved on the ground of mental and physical cruelty? OPR

iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion? OPP

iv. Whether the petitioner has no locus-standi to file this petition? OPR

v. Whether the petitioner has not come in the Court with clean hands and is not entitled to any relief? OPR

vi. Relief.

5. The respondent-husband examined PW-1 Dr. Dharmender Jyani, PW-2 Dr. Bir Singh Yadav, PW-4 Sukh Dayal, PW-5 Kishori Lal, PW-6 Devi Dayal and himself stepped into witness box as PW-3. The appellant-wife examined RW-1 Dr. Hitesh Khurana, RW-2 Balwant Mehta, RW-3 Sushil Kumar and herself stepped into witness box as RW-4.

6. Upon considering the evidence led by the parties, the learned lower Court returned its findings on issues No.1 to 3 in favour of the respondent-husband holding therein that the appellant-wife is suffering from mental disorder and had subjected