Insufficient evidence of mental disorder or cruelty fails to establish grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

1.This appeal, in a matrimonial case, is by the husband and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-9-2004 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 14 - A / 2004 whereby the petition for dissolution of marriage filed under S.5(i)(b) read with S.12, S.13(1)(iii) and S.13(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') by the appellant / husband has been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case in brief are as under : -

(i) The marriage between the appellant Mithilesh Shrivastava and the respondent Smt. Kiran Shrivastava was solemnized on 16-4-1998, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. No child was born from the wedlock. The marriage, according to the appellant, lasted up to 11-1-2000.

(ii) According to the appellant, immediately after marriage, the appellant noticed some abnormal behaviour of the respondent. He earlier informed Smt. Indu Verma, who was a mediator in the marriage, on telephone and then to the parents of the respondent and afterwards remained requesting the members of the in - laws family to sit together and discuss regarding abnormal behaviour and mental illness of the respondent but in vein. Ultimately, he consulted Dr. Prakash Narayan Shukla (P.W. 2), a renowned Psychiatrist at Raipur, who advised to examine the patient with the previous prescriptions to facilitate the treatment. Neither the sittings were made by the in - laws nor the prescriptions were made available. Ultimately, Dr. Prakash Narayan Shukla (P.W. 2) examined the respondent and diagnosed her case to be 'Paranoid Schizophrenia'. According to the appellant, the respondent was suffering from the above mental disorder at the time of marriage and the above fact has been concealed from him. As per Doctors advice, the child born out of above wedlock may suffer mental disorder, which the appellant does not want.

(iii) When this fact was revealed, members of the in - laws' family took respondent and did not hand over the prescriptions. The respondent, thereafter, lodged dowry harassment case against the appellant, as a result of which, the appellant had to suffer mental agony and financial crunch.

(iv) The defendant / respondent denied all the allegations levelled against her. She specifically denied that she is suffering from 'Paranoid Schizophrenia' or any type of mental disorder. According to the respondent, she did M.Sc. in Botany and was working as a Teacher in Maharshi Vidya Mandir. According to her, sister of the appellant is an origin of all disputes. The appellant, his mother and sister instigated her to bring more money from her maternal home. Despite of marriage with the appellant, she had to spend several years in her maternal home. Due to demand of dowry, the report was lodged by her.

(v) She never took any medicine nor was under treatment of any Doctor. With an ulterior motive, the appellant had obtained a certificate from Dr. Prakash Narayan Shukla, who never examined her nor she was under his treatment. The above story was cooked up in order to procure decree of divorce, by hook or crook and the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

3. The trial Court framed the following issues : (Vernacular matter omitted....Ed.)

4. The appellant examined himself and Dr. Prakash Narayan Shukla (A.W. 2). The respondent, however, got only her statement recorded but her cross - examination could not be concluded as she did not appear in the witness box to complete his deposition.

5. The trial Court, vide judgment and decree impugned, dismissed the divorce petition filed by the appellant / husband inter alia on the ground; appellant failed to prove respondent is su