Epilepsy, as a mental disorder under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, must be of such a kind and extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. The obligation to maintain and look after the spouse includes the duty to provide proper medical treatment, and failure to do so may indicate a lack of effort to address the issue.

( 1 ) THIS appeal filed under S. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-10-83 passed by Shri D. R. Pundlik, District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 28a of 1982 dissolving the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce under S. 13 (1) (iii) of the Act.

( 2 ) THAT the parties were married in accordance with Hindu rites in March, 1988 and lived together as husband and wife for a year and a half, does not appear to be in dispute. According to the respondent's application under S. 13 of the Act, the appellant was suffering from epilepsy, as a result of which she very often lost consciousness and suffered convulsions. The respondent claims to have got her treated and spent Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- for that purpose, without any result. In his application, it is alleged that though the appellant suffered the disease from before the date of marriage, he was not informed about it and therefore, he underwent marriage ceremony without being told about it. According to the application, the disease has posed a danger to the life of the appellant and has made it risky for him to live with the appellant. The application further discloses that there is no likelihood of the appellant being cured of the disease. He, therefore, prayed for a decree of divorce. The appellant, in her written statement, admitted that she was suffering from epilepsy from before marriage but her defence was that this was disclosed to the respondent's father before marriage. She also admitted that as a result of this, she suffered a fit of sudden loss of consciousness attended with convulsions. She, however, submitted that the disease was curable and if the respondent had given her proper treatment, she would have recovered. She denied that the respondent had spent any amount on her treatment. The learned trial Judge, on the basis of appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the appellant was suffering from epilepsy, which constituted a ground under S. 13 (1) (iii) of the Act. The learned Judge drew adverse inference against the appellant for her not appearing as a witness in the case. That is how, the decree for divorce was granted. ( 3 ) THE question requiring consideration of this Court is whether case for divorce under S. 13 (1) (iii) of the Act has been made out on the basis of material on record? The provision reads as under:-"13. (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on it petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with, any person other than his or her spouse; or (ia) to (ii ). . . . . (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. "this clause, as is well-known, was added in the Act by Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 to provide for divorce on the ground of incurable unsoundness of mind. Earlier this ground was available only if the incurable unsoundness of mind has been there for a continuous period of not less than three years immediately before the presentation of the petition. The amendment has the effect of dispensing with the requirement of minimum period. By this very amendment, cases of mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent are also added. Incurable unsoundness of mind conveys the idea of the person becoming incapable of managing himself and his affairs including the problems of society and of married life. Similarly, the mental disorder whether continuous or intermittent, has to be of a kind and extent that the petitioner