The appellant failed to prove grounds for divorce based on insanity or cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as required by law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Sanjeev Singh and Shri Ram Pyare, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ajay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) arising from the judgment and order dated 12.2.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Fatehpur, in Petition No. 31 of 2012 (Shiv Sagar vs. Smt. Poonam Devi), whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the divorce case instituted by the appellant, seeking dissolution of his marriage on the grounds of insanity and cruelty.

3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized in 2005. Admittedly, they lived together for almost seven years. Two daughters were born to them, both of whom are in the custody of the respondent. The parties have been living separately since January 2012. The appellant is a driver in the Provincial Arms Constabulary. Maintenance is being paid to the respondent and her two daughters under an order passed in separate proceedings. Upon exchange of pleadings, the learned court below framed the issue, whether the appellant was entitled to seek dissolution of his marriage on the ground of insanity, as the main ground. He also pleaded cruelty arising from the insane behaviour attributed to the respondent.

4. The appellant led both oral and documentary evidence in support of his case. Besides the appellant, two other witnesses, Jitendra Kumar and Pratap Singh, were examined. By way of documentary evidence, the appellant filed paper No. 7 Ga 1/1, being a medical prescription from Dr. S.B. Joshi, and paper Nos. 7 Ga 1/2 to 3, being medical test reports, along with list Nos. 34 Ga to 35 Ga, which included prescriptions from Dr. S.B. Joshi.

5. On her part, the respondent led oral evidence wherein, besides herself, Ram Singh and Gulab Singh were examined. By way of documentary evidence, the respondent filed documents, including her High School and Intermediate certificates, as well as her marks sheet and Graduation degree certificates to establish that she was well educated.

6. Upon detailed consideration, the learned trial Court reached firm conclusions of fact. It concluded that the parties had cohabited for seven years without any criminal or other case being lodged by either party against the other. The period of cohabitation was largely uneventful. Two children were born to the parties during that period. In the context of those firm findings, which are also not disputed by the appellant, the learned trial Court proceeded to consider the further evidence led by the appellant regarding the allegations of insanity.

7. As to insanity, Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act and the explanation thereto reads as below:

“13(1)........

............

(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.

Explanation: In this clause:

(a) the expression “mental disorder” means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia.

(b) the expression “psychopathic disorder” means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including subnormality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment.”

8. Thus, the appellant was burdened to establish either that the respondent was incurably of unsound mind or that she had been afflicted by such a medical condition as may be described as a continuous or intermittent mental disorder of a kind in which the appellant may not be reasonably expected to live with the respondent. As to what medical condition qualifies as mental disorder, the Explanation leaves no doubt. It must be a medical i