The need for medical evidence to support claims of mental disorder and the principles of mental cruelty as laid down in previous judgments.

Raj Mohan Singh, J.

Appellant-husband is in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.3.2014 passed by District Judge, Sirsa, whereby, petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the appellant-husband was dismissed.

2. Appellant-husband filed the petition with the allegations that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 28.5.2005 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was consummated and male child, namely, Ravinder took birth out of this wedlock. Presently, the son is residing with the respondent. The appellant alleged that from the very inception of the marriage, behaviour of the respondent was cruel some and was having mental disorder. This fact was concealed by the parents of the respondent at the time of marriage. It was alleged against the wife that she used to beat the husband and also break the articles. She also used to run away from the matrimonial house. On one occasion she had an psychiatric attack and went away from the house. One Rameshwar, son of Ranjeet Singh, saw her in an unconscious condition and he brought her back to the house.

3. Appellant further alleged that his father-in-law used to demand huge amount from him from time to time. He has already paid Rs.9 lacs to his father-in-law i.e. Rs.5 lacs on 25.5.2010 and Rs.4 lacs on 20.3.2011 after borrowing the same from one Rameshwar on interest. Appellant also alleged that the respondent left the matrimonial house in June 2009 without any reasonable excuse and without consent of the appellant-husband and also took away valuable ornaments and cash worth Rs.10,000/-. The efforts of the appellant to bring her back remained futile. Several panchayats were convened but in vein. In August, 2011, respondent moved complaint to the police against the appellant-husband and his family members. With these allegations, the divorce petition came to be filed at the instance of the appellant-husband.

4. Respondent-wife contested the allegations on all counts, thereby denying the allegations of the husband. Respondent admitted that sufficient dowry was given to the appellant-husband in the marriage. Her parents spent more than Rs.6 lacs on the marriage. Allegations of mental disorder and hot temperament were denied. In fact, she was harassed on account of demand of dowry and was shunted out from the matrimonial house by giving beatings. Many panchayats were convened by her parents to settle the issue, but of no consequence. In April, 2011, the appellant-husband and his family members gave merciless beatings to the respondent and threw her out of the matrimonial house after snatching her ornaments. She was threatened and compelled to bring motorcycle and buffalo, otherwise she would not be allowed in the house and rather would be done to death. In the panchayat, the appellant and his family members refused to keep the respondent and were adamant on their demands. FIR No.204 dated 27.11.2011 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Ding was got registered by the respondent against the appellant-husband and his family members which is pending. Petition under the Domestic Violence Act was also filed against the husband and his family members.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

"1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage by granting a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act, as alleged ? OPP

2.Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form ? OPR

3. Relief."

6. Both the parties led their respective evidence to prove their case.

7. Appellant-husband got examined himself as PW-1 and Rameshwar was examined as PW-2, besides Mahi Pal as PW-3.

8. On the other hand, respondent-wife got herself examined as RW-1, her father Om Parkash appeared as RW-2. Advocate Ved Parkash Sharan was examined as RW-3 and she also tendered copy of the sale deed as Ex.R-1. There was no rebuttal