The judgment established that the grounds for granting a decree of divorce based on mental illness must align with the legal definitions and requirements under Section 13(i)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

This is an appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act from the judgment and order dated 10.10.2012, passed by the Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit(Divorce) No. 14 of 2011.

2. The appellant is the husband of the respondent and their marriage was duly solemnized as per Hindu rights and customs on 12.12.2007. After 10 to 15 days of the marriage, the appellant noticed some abnormalities in the behaviour of the respondent. She used to hurl filthy language towards the appellant, his mother, younger and elder brothers and to their wives. To avoid untoward happenings, the appellant decided to live in a separate mess. When the said arrangement was made, a new phenomenon was noticed by the appellant that the respondent used to remain unmindful to the household works. She was careless to him, her mother-in-law and other in-laws. Even it was observed by the appellant that she was not interested in the normal marital life. However, on 20.12.2009, a male child was born in the wedlock. The appellant had expected, at that time, that would bring normalcy in their marital life. But unfortunately that did not happen.

3. Some day in the month of May 2009, the respondent delivered a letter in her own hand-writing to the appellant. The content thereof could not be penned down by a normal human being. In the similar manner, in the month of June, 2009 the respondent gave another letter in her own handwriting where she expressed that she was not at all interested in the 'domestic' life. The appellant could not make out head and tail of the content.

4. On observing such pattern, the assistance of the father of the respondent was sought. Even some neighbourers got involved so that the respondent may find a mental balance in discharging her marital duties.

5. Having regard to that Dr. Bhubaneshwar Ray, a reputed psycratist was consulted. One of the prescription slip was also furnished with the petition. For further treatment, the respondent was taken to Dr. Asim Choudhury on 11.10.2009. At that time, father in law of the appellant and the respondent told Dr. Choudhury about her history of mental 'problem'. It appeared for the first time to the appellant that she was suffering from some mental problems since her college days. A prescription of Dr. Choudhury was also submitted in the Family court. Dr. Choudhury and Dr. D.C. Deb examined the respondent on 27.01.2010 and 04.10.2010. During such consultations the respondent had reportedly expressed that she was not inclined to continue her family life. In the prescription slips doctors observed that "her smile was not appropriate". The appellant further alleged that the respondent was not taking proper care of their child. The appellant stated in the petition further that matrimonial life has become miserable for the unsoundness of mind of the respondent. According to him, there was no possibility of cure. Hence, the appellant is not reasonably expected to live with the respondent.

6. The respondent appeared and filed her written statements completely denying the allegations made in the said petition. In the written statement, the respondents brought the obligations against the appellant also. She alleged that the appellant neglected the newly born child. He did not extend any helping hand towards her. She had further alleged that the appellant had pressurised her to get the pregnancy terminated and she was not willing that she was subjected to cruelty both physical and mental and even was forced her to write some letters according to the desire of the appellant.

7. Even the statements as alleged to have been made before Dr. Choudhury that she was not interested to live the marital life was squarely denied by the respondent.

Even she denied suppressing or existence of any mental problem at the time of her marriage. She has quite categorically stated that she does not have any history of mental disorder.

8. It appears from the record that the appellant adduced 5(five) witnes