Judgment Om Prakash, J. 1. THIS is a First Appeal by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 31st July, 1984, of the learned II Addl. District Judge, Jhansi, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for dissolution of his marriage with the appellant by a decree of divorce. 2. THE plaintiff filed a suit on 14-7-1983 with the allegations that his marriage was solemnized with the defendant on 17-6-79 with Hindu and customary rites at Jhansi ; that a female child was born from their wed-lock about two years before, but she expired soon after the birth; that the defendant was suffering from mental disorder from before the marriage, but that fact was concealed by her parents ; that due to the mental disorder of the defendant, it cannot reasonably be expected of the plaintiff to live with her ; that the defendant did not respond to the treatment given by several doctors ; that the doctor certified that the defendant has been suffering from schizophrenia ; that she is dangerous to herself and to others ; that the doctor advised the plaintiff to keep the defendant in a mental asylum ; that due to schizophrenia the defendant used abusive language and her treatment is cruel as against the plaintiff and the members of his family ; that the defendant lodged a false report on 1st July, 1983, at the Police Station that she had been beaten by the son of her elder sister-in-law ; that on 1st July, 1983, the defendant gave the beating to the two sisters of the plaintiff, namely, Bharti and Alka, who were medically examined for the injuries caused to them and that in these circumstances, dissolution of the plaintiff's marriage with the defendant has become necessary. The defendant filed a written statement and denied that she is the patient of schizophrenia. She pleaded herself to be a normal house wife able to discharge her all the marital obligations. She contended that the plaintiff took her to the doctors under the pretext that her treatment was necessary so that next delivery might be normal and at that time the plaintiff might have obtained false certificates from the doctors. She pleaded herself to be a normal house wife able to discharge her all the marital obligations. She contended that the plaintiff took her to the doctors under the pretext that her treatment was necessary so that next delivery might be normal and at that time the plaintiff might have obtained false certificates from the doctors. In paragraph 15 of the written statement, the pleading is that she has been ill-treated throughout by the plaintiff and the members of his family and that she has been subjected to merciless beating by the plaintiff and members of his family with a view to pressurising her to bring more and more dowry to satisfy her in-law's greed. It is contended that the plaintiff has filed a false suit with ulterior motive that he may solemnize re-marriage after obtaining the decree of divorce to satisfy his greed for dowry. It is alleged that with a view to achieving the idea of re-marriage, the plaintiff made efforts to receive orders to keep the defendant in the mental asylum, but his plan did not succeed, as the City Magistrate rejected his application. 3. ON the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the defendant Rameshwari Devi is a patient of schizophrenia and whether it is dangerous for the plaintiff to live with her ? 2. Whether the defendant ill-treated the plaintiff and the members of his family and whether the former has been ill-treated by the plaintiff and members of his family ? 3. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled ? 4. THE learned trial court accepted the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has been suffering from schizophrenia and that her treatment with the plaintiff and the members of his family becomes cruel during the attack of schizophrenia. He, therefore, granted a decree of divorce. I have heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and Sri G. P. Bhargava, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent. The contention of Sri Shashi Nandan is that the plaintiff filed the suit u/Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (briefly ' the Act 1955 , which, so far as material, runs as under : "13 (1). I have heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and Sri G. P. Bhargava, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent. The contention of Sri Shashi Nandan is that the plaintiff filed the suit u/Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (briefly ' the Act 1955 , which, so far as material, runs as under : "13 (1). Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party- (i)......... (ia)......... (ib)......... (ii)......... (iii) has been incurable 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. " Explanation (a) to clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 13 is as follows : " In this clause : the expression " mental disorder " means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder of mind and includes schizophrenia." The submission of Sri Shashi Nandan is that the ingredients of clause (iii) to subsection (1) of Sec. 13 are that the other party- (1) has been incurably of unsound mind, or (2) 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. 5. HE further submitted that apart from establishing that the defendant has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder the plaintiff to obtain a decree of divorce has to prove that the mental disorder of the defendant is of such a kind that the plaintiff cannot reasonably be expected to live with the defendant. 6. HIS contention is that the trial court simply found that the defendant has been suffering from schizophrenia, but no finding has been returned by him that the mental disorder of the defendant has been of such a kind and to such an extent that the plaintiff cannot reasonably live with the defendant. The argument was that the trial court failed to record a finding on the vital requirement of clause (iii) to sub-section (1) of section 13 and, therefore, the decree for divorce cannot be sustained. The argument was that the trial court failed to record a finding on the vital requirement of clause (iii) to sub-section (1) of section 13 and, therefore, the decree for divorce cannot be sustained. It is argued that assuming, but not accepting, the defendant is a patient of schizophrenia, yet no decree for divorce can be granted, unless the plaintiff proves beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence of a very high degree that the gravity of the mental disorder of the defendant was such that the plaintiff cannot reasonably be expected to live with the defendant. From the reading of clause (iii) to sub-section (1) of Section 13, read with Explanation (a), it is clear that the ' mental disorder ' the phrase that occurs in clause (iii), includes schizophrenia. The question is what is schizophrenia ? In Reader's Digest ' Family Health Guide ' a concise but vivid description of ' schizophrenia ' is given at page 486 thus : "Schizophrenia A serious mental disorder marked by irrational thinking, disturbed emotions and a breakdown in communications with others. Schizophrenia is the most common type of psychosis, accounting for about half the serious mental illness in Britain. The cause is not known, but it may be related to a hereditary disorder in metabolism. Environment also has an influence. People who develop schizophrenia often have a history of unhappiness and emotional stress in early childhood. later, frustration and disappointment may contribute to the development of Schizophrenia in a person who is predisposed to it. The condition can, however, arise in people from a normal stable family background. Schizophrenia is a variable illness. It can be mild or very severe. There are four broadly different types but there is no definite dividing line between them. An individual case may change from one type to another or may have characteristics of more than one. In simple Schizophrenia, there is gradual mental deterioration with little tendency to delusions and hallucinations. Paranoid schizophrenia is marked by suspiciousness and delusions of persecution. The Catanonic patient tends to fluctuate between extreme apathy and hyperactivity. In the hyperactive phase, erratic and confused behaviour are often combined with delusions of grandeur. The patient with hebephrenia has incoherent speech, laughs and cries without cause, and generally behaves in a bizarre way. Paranoid schizophrenia is marked by suspiciousness and delusions of persecution. The Catanonic patient tends to fluctuate between extreme apathy and hyperactivity. In the hyperactive phase, erratic and confused behaviour are often combined with delusions of grandeur. The patient with hebephrenia has incoherent speech, laughs and cries without cause, and generally behaves in a bizarre way. Psychotherapy has occasionally proved effective in the treatment of schizophrenia tranquillisers and other drugs such as fluphenazine are no replacing shock therapy. With the new approaches being used, the prospect of recovery is considerably better than in the past." 7. IN Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Twentieth Edition, the eminent author N. J. Modi has described four varieties of schizophrenia at pages 397 and 398. They are : (1) Simple Schizophrenia, (2) Hebephrenia, (3) Katatonia, and (4) Paranoid Schizophrenia. 8. IN the first variety, the patient looses interest in his best friends, who are few in number and gives up his hobbies. He has conflicts about sex. He looses all ambitions and drifts along in life swelling the ranks of the chronically unemployed. Complete disintegration of the personality generally does not occur, but when it does, it occurs after a number of years. In the second variety, i.e., hebephrenia, disordered thinking is the outstanding characteristic of this type of schizophrenia. There is great incoherence of thought, periods of wild excitement occur and there are illusions and hallucinations. 9. IN the third variety, i.e., Katatonia, the patient is in a state of wild excitement, is destructive, violent and abusive. He may impulsively assault anyone without the slightest provocation. Homicidal and suicidal attempts may be made. 10. PARANOID schizophrenia is the fourth variety and in the vast majority of cases it starts in the fourth decade and develops insidiously. Suspiciousness is the characteristic symptom of the early stage. Ideas of reference occur which gradually develop into delusions of persecution. So it is only when the schizophrenia is of the third variety, i.e., Katatonia, that the patient is in a state of wild excitement, is destructive, violent and abusive. 11. LET us see whether the defendant suffers from schizophrenia and whether there is any unassailable and cogent evidence to establish that the schizophrenia is of third variety, namely, Katatonia, when the patient becomes destructive, wild and abusive. 12. THE case of the plaintiff is that the defendant remained under the treatment of the Psychiatrist Dr. 11. LET us see whether the defendant suffers from schizophrenia and whether there is any unassailable and cogent evidence to establish that the schizophrenia is of third variety, namely, Katatonia, when the patient becomes destructive, wild and abusive. 12. THE case of the plaintiff is that the defendant remained under the treatment of the Psychiatrist Dr. G. D. Shukla, in Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi. Exts 1 and 2 are the prescription and discharge certificates issued by Dr. G. D. Shukla. Ext. 4 is the medical certificate dated 18-5-1983, which was issued by Dr. Shukla, in which he certified that the defendant suffered from schizophrenia since 26th March, 1983. There is no counter certificate of any expert from the side of the defendant. I, therefore, do not see any cogent reason to brush aside this certificate of Dr. G. D. Shukla, who examined himself as PW 1. The next question is whether the mental disorder of the defendant was of such a kind and to such an extent that it cannot reasonably by expected of the plaintiff to live with the defendant. The plaintiff filed another certificate Ext. 3 dated 2nd July, 1983, in which Dr. G. D. Shukla PW 1 certified as under :- "I feel that Mrs. Rameshwari is, because of her mental illness dangerous to others. Further she is dangerous to herself as she often threatens to kill herself. As such, she is not fit to remain at large and is fit for admission to a mental hospital for proper care and treatment." It is to be noted that whereas Dr. Shukla gave no such description in his earlier certificate dated 18-5-83 Ext. 4, he made a mention for the first time of the dangerous situation arising from the illness of the defendant in his certificate dated 2nd July, 1983 Ext. 3. The contention of the defendant is that this certificate was obtained by the plaintiff with an ulterior motive. Let us see the set of facts that has taken place anterior to the date of this certificate Ext. 3. The defendant lodged a first information report Ext. 11 at 11.45 A. M. on 1st July, 1983, against the plaintiff, inter alia, stating that when she was cleaning untensils at about 9 A. M., she was pushed aside by the son of the elder brother of her husband. 3. The defendant lodged a first information report Ext. 11 at 11.45 A. M. on 1st July, 1983, against the plaintiff, inter alia, stating that when she was cleaning untensils at about 9 A. M., she was pushed aside by the son of the elder brother of her husband. When she protested, she was abused and beaten by the accused persons and they had threatened to kill by setting her ablaze. 13. THE plaintiff examined himself as PW2 and he gave no reason as to why the defendant filed false first information report against him and others on the morning of 1st July, 1983. THE only statement is that the report was false. On 5th July, 1983, the plaintiff made an application Ext. A-3 to the City Magistrate to obtain orders for sending the defendant to the Mental Asylum, Agra, but that application was turned down by the City Magistrate vide order dated 14th September, 1983 Ext. A-1, observing that the defendant " talks in a sensible manner and is not at all hostile......" Ext. A-2 dated 1st July, 1983, is another medical certificate obtained from Dr. S. A. Khan, which was filed along with the application Ext. A-3 in the court of City Magistrate, Jhansi. His opinion about the defendant was :- "She is very dangerous to others and her own self, as threatens to kill and burn her own self." He has not been examined by the plaintiff to state the dangerous situation arising from the illness of the defendant and, thus, the defendant has been deprived of the valuable right of cross-examination. Moreover, the plaintiff stated that no regular treatment was done by Dr. S. A. Khan of the defendant and that he gave only primary treatment. All this cannot be believed, inasmuch as, Dr. S. A. Khan was not examined by the plaintiff and the defendant was prevented to cross-examine Dr. Khan. Injury reports Exts. 5 and 6 of Alka and Bharti are also dated 1st July, 1983. THE author of Exts. 5 and 6 were also not examined. THE defendant, who examined herself as DW 1, denied that she gave the beating to her sister-in-law on 1st July, 1983. Also she stated that she was beaten on 1st July, 1983, and she might have caused some injury to her sisters-in-law while acting in self-defence. THE second certificate Ext. 3 by Dr. 5 and 6 were also not examined. THE defendant, who examined herself as DW 1, denied that she gave the beating to her sister-in-law on 1st July, 1983. Also she stated that she was beaten on 1st July, 1983, and she might have caused some injury to her sisters-in-law while acting in self-defence. THE second certificate Ext. 3 by Dr. G. D. Shukla dated 2nd July, 1983, has to be seen in the sequence of the above events. There is nothing on record to show that the defendant lodged false report with the police in the morning of 1st July, 1983, against the plaintiff inter alia. It is after the said report was lodged, the plaintiff made efforts to collect all the evidence with the aim of sending the defendant to the mental asylum and filed the suit for dissolution of marriage by the decree of divorce. THE above evidence were collected in quick succession. Keeping in view the above events, the reliability of the second medical certificate Ext. 3 dated 2-7-1983 has to be tested. Whereas, in the first certificate Ext. 4 dated 18-5-1983, nothing was said about the dangerous situation arising from the illness of the defendant by Dr. G. D. Shukla; it is only in the second certificate, which was obtained a day after the lodging of the first information report dated 1st July, 1983, it was certified that the defendant was not fit to remain at large. Meither in the first certificate Ext. 4, nor in the second certificate Ext. 3 Dr. G. D. Shukla stated that the schizophrenia, the defendant is suffering from, was of the third variety, namely, Katatonia, when the patient becomes wild, distructive and violent. In this statement also, Dr. G. D. Shukla PW 1 does not state that the schizophrenia was of Katatonia variety. He does not say even a word about the danger, arising from the mental disorder of the defendant. THE certificate Ext. 3 does not bear the thumb impression or signature of the defendant and, therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that the said certificate was issued by Dr. G. D. Shukla after having examined the defendant. 14. SO the entire evidence collected against the defendant after the morning of 1-7-1983, when the first information report was lodged by her with the police, is doubtful. In Pronab Kumar Ghosh v. Krishna Ghosh, AIR 1975 Cal. G. D. Shukla after having examined the defendant. 14. SO the entire evidence collected against the defendant after the morning of 1-7-1983, when the first information report was lodged by her with the police, is doubtful. In Pronab Kumar Ghosh v. Krishna Ghosh, AIR 1975 Cal. 109 the Court adverting to the earlier decision of the Special Bench in the case of Subrato Kumar Banerjee v. Dipti Banerji, AIR 1974 Cal. 61 held that it is the duty of the courts to pronounce a decree of divorce only when it is satisfied that the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt as to commission of matrimonial offence. It was laid down therein that the cumulative effect of the evidence on record should be such as to satisfy the conscience of the court for coming to the conclusion that such an offence has been committed by the parties. In Smt. Rita Roy v. Sitesh Chandra Bhadri, AIR 1982 Cal. 138 the Calcutta High Court accepted the case of the plaintiff (husband) that the wife suffered from mental disorder, but looking to the evidence held in paragraph 20 at page 143 as follows : ".........We are clearly of opinion that she only has slight mental disorder and she has been suffering intermittently from the same. After considering the totality of the evidence and the impact on the husband, we must hold that such mental disorder is not of such a kind and to such an extent that the husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with her........." The position of the instant plaintiff is no better, as the evidence referred to above do not inspire any confidence, as they all seem sequel to the report, lodged by the defendant with the police in the morning of 1st July, 1983. 15. A question was clearly put to the plaintiff in his examination-in-chief by his counsel as to whether the defendant ever beat the children. First categorical answer was that the beating was given once or twice and then he improved the statement that beating was given on numerous occasions. The marriage was performed in June, 1979, and the statement of the plaintiff was recorded on 19th July, 1984. First categorical answer was that the beating was given once or twice and then he improved the statement that beating was given on numerous occasions. The marriage was performed in June, 1979, and the statement of the plaintiff was recorded on 19th July, 1984. In such a long span, according to the statement of the plaintiff, the defendant physically assaulted the children only once or twice It gives enough idea of the gravity or of the extent of the mental disorder of the defendant that she is not violent. The frequency or the duration of the attack of schizophrenia has not been stated either by the plaintiff or by Dr. G. D. Shukla PW 1. 16. NOW we can deal with the evidence of two more plaintiff's witnesses. PW 3 Gayasi Ram stated that he is a mason and that he was employed to carry out the works by the plaintiff's family and then he saw the insane behaviour of the defendant. It is stated by him that the defendant gave a beating to the plaintiff's father and his elder brother and both remained silent in the course of beating. This is wholly improbable and against the human conduct. PW 4 Janki Prasad Sahu stated that he was engaged as a tutor of the children of the elder brother of the plaintiff and then he witnessed the eccentric tendency of the defendant. In his cross-examination he expressed his total inability to give the description of the defendant's physique, i. e. her complexion, height etc. The inability of this witness in giving the physical description of the defendant shows that this entire statement is tutored one. This is the state of affairs of the evidence of the plaintiff. A word about the environment, the defendant has been living in. The case of the defendant is that right from the time of marriage, she has been harassed, cruelly treated and beaten by the in-laws and they constantly pestered her to bring more and more dowry and that she was beaten when she failed to satisfy the staggering demands of the in-laws. Cruelty inflicted by the in-laws culminated in the first information report which the defendant lodged in the morning of 1st July, 1983, for which no convincing evidence has been given by the plaintiff that the said report was false and that was filed by the defendant without any grave provocation. Cruelty inflicted by the in-laws culminated in the first information report which the defendant lodged in the morning of 1st July, 1983, for which no convincing evidence has been given by the plaintiff that the said report was false and that was filed by the defendant without any grave provocation. The case of the defendant is that the ill-treatment extended to her by her in-laws throughout right from the time of marriage told upon her mental state and she became very irritative and apprehensive. The case of the defendant has to be seen in this background. 17. LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff drew my attention to the letters Exts. 7 to 10 that have been written either by the defendant or by her parent. These letters do not contain any evidence of the fact that the mental disorder of the defendant was of such a kind and of such an extent that it can not reasonably be expected of the plaintiff to live with the defendant. 18. FOR the foregoing reasons, I accept the contention of learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the decree of divorce cannot be sustained, as the plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence that could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the mental disorder of the defendant was of such a kind and to such an extent that the plaintiff cannot live safely with the defendant. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs throughout and the judgment and decree of the trial court are set aside. Appeal allowed.