IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 02.12.2025 Vikas Kochar ... Appellant V/S Rozy ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present: Dr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate and Mr. Mahesh Inderpreet, Advocate for the appellant.

***

RAMESH KUMARI, J.

1. Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband against common judgment dated 18.08.2025 vide which the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘HMA’) by respondent-wife (petitioner in the said petition) was allowed and petition under Section 9 of HMA filed by the appellant-husband was dismissed.

2. The admitted case of the parties is that their marriage was performed on

14.10.2007 at Amritsar. One male child was born on 12.09.2009, who is residing with the appellant-husband.

3. Appellant-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the HMA on the ground that the respondent-wife has withdrawn from his society without any reasonable cause, whereas, the respondent-wife has filed a petition under Section 13 of HMA on the ground of cruelty stating cruel behaviour of the mother of appellant-husband and that appellant-husband used to take liquor and was a chain smoker, taking intoxicants and also suffering from some disease and for which he was taking treatment from PGI, Chandigarh, though she was not aware of the exact nature of disease suffered by the appellant-husband.

4. During the course of trial, the respondent-wife examined PW-4 Dr. Sandeep Grover, who proved discharge slip of the appellant-husband issued by PGI, Chandigarh. He had treated the appellant-husband and found that he is suffering from Schizophrenia, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Chronic Viral Hepatitis C and Mild Mental Retardation.

5. Learned trial Court also referred to Section 13(1)(iii) of HMA and its explanation and also to observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Ram Narain Gupta Versus Rameshwari Gupta (1988) 4 SCC 247 wherein it was held that mere existence of schizophrenia is not enough and courts must see whether mental disorder is of such a kind and to such an extent that it is not possible for a spouse to live with other.

6. Learned trial Court has rightly observed that mere diagnose of respondent (appellant-husband in this appeal) with Schizophrenia is not sufficient ground for divorce but nature and seriousness of said disorder alongwith degree and impact of said mental disorder should be proved by the petitioner (respondent-wife in this appeal) that she cannot be reasonably expected to live with respondent. Learned trial Court has however further observed that the respondent-wife (petitioner in petition under Section 13 of HMA) had proved the said mental illness and behaviour of the appellant-husband inasmuch as he tried to kill the respondent-wife by strangulation. Hence, mental illness of the appellant- husband though itself is a ground, but coupled with acts of appellant-

husband clearly proved that it is not possible and not safe for the respondent-wife to reside with the appellant-husband and to perform matrimonial obligations and she is justified in residing separately from him. She has proved the acts of the appellant-husband in causing mental as well as physical cruelty upon her which entitled her for divorce.

7. It was also noted by learned trial Court that appellant-husband did not examine himself before the Family Court, but examined his mother as Special Power of Attorney. The original power of attorney was brought on record but not relied upon as it was not exhibited or marked in evidence and the learned trial Court observed that since she (mother of the appellant-husband) is his real mother and she was aware about his mental illness and that is why, she has not brought on record the Special Power of Attorney knowing the fact that the appellant-husband cannot execute the power of attorney, if he is suffering from Schizophrenia, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Chron