IMPORTANT POINT
“Mental disorder” as a ground of divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is only applicable where it is of such a kind and degree that appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with respondent.

A.C. Upadhyay, J.—This matrimonial appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.12.2003, passed by the learned District Judge, Golaghat, in case No. T.S. (M) 12/2002, dismissing the prayer of the appellant-husband for a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. We have heard Ms. P. Bhattacharya, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the, appellant-husband. However, none appears for the respondent-wife despite service of notice.

3. The facts in brief, leading to filing of this appeal, may be narrated as follows:

On 3.6.1998, tile appellant and the respondent got married according to the Hindu rites and customs, and started living together as. husband and wife. Immediately after the marriage, the respondent started showing some signs unreasonable character and behaviour. However, both appellant and respondent continued to live together as husband and wife. As a result of their cohabitation, the respondent wife conceived through him, but for lifting of a ‘devan’ (bed) by the respondent. at the residence, there was a miscarriage of the pregnancy. Nevertheless, subsequently the respondent-wife once again conceived for the second time, however, during the period of her second pregnancy she purportedly had made an attempt to commit suicide. According to the appellant, on his intervention the respondent was taken to a nursing home, for medical treatment. However, the second pregnancy also was miscarried. Having found no alternative the appellant-husband took his wife to her parental house at Marangi. But on 30.11.1998, the respondent-wife once again came: back to his house and started living with him, but the appellant submitted written information to the police on 1.12.1998 stating therein that the appellant had a tendency to commit suicide. Having come to know about the information given by the appellant to the police, the respondent-wife left his house on 1.12.1998 and since then she did not come back to stay with the appellant. The appellant, having found no way out, filed the suit seeking decree for divorce, as per provisions of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the ground of desertion and mental cruelty.

4. The respondent entered appearance before the trial court and filed her written statement stoutly denying all the allegations contained in the petition for divorce. The respondent-wife stated in her written statement that after their marriage both of them cohabited as husband and wife by residing together. According to the respondent, the appellant-husband used to ill-treat her by inflicting physical torture and by misbehaving with her, for not having begotten his child: The respondent also alleged that though she was ever willing to stay with the appellant as his legally married wife by cohabiting with him, but the appellant did not want her to stay with him.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues, for just decision of the case:

(i) Whether there is cause of action for this suit?

(ii) Whether the respondent was found to have some unreasonable character and behaviour from the next day of marriage on 4.6.1998 at her matrimonial house?

(iii) Whether the petitioner ill-treated the respondent by way of physical tortures and kept her away without reasonable cause?

(iv) What relief/reliefs, if any, the petitioner is entitled to?

6. During the course of hearing the appellant-husband adduced his own testimony and the testimony of his elder sister, Satyamoni Dutta Dr. Bijay Prasad Borah, Psychiatrist and one Ritu Borah an independent witness. The respondent-wife also adduced her own evidence in support of her contention depending all the allegations levelled against her.

7. Insofar as Issue No.2 is concerned, Sri Arunjyoti Dutta (PW1 ) stated that the respondent-wife had shown abnormal behaviour, but upon perusal of the evidence of the witnesses and materials on record, it appears that the responden