JUDGMENT S. N. Phukan, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7-9-1992 of the learned District Judge, Solan in Case No. HM. Petition No. 13/ /3 of 1992. By the impugned judgment, the petition filed by the present appellant-husband against the respondent-wife under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed. The ground for divorce was that respondent had been incurably of unsound mind and had been suffering continuously from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent The petition was dismissed by the impugned judgment, hence the present appeal. 2. It is not disputed that the parties were married to each other on 10-5-1986 according to Hindu rites and they lived and cohabited together as husband and wife for a short period at village Kanshi Patta, Tehsil Kandaghat. Though in the petition it has been alleged that no issue was born yet we find from the evidence on record that it is an admitted fact that respondent gave birth to two children through the present petitioner-appellant but both the children did not survive According to appellant-petitioner, the respondent was an idiot/lunatic at the time of the marriage and she continued to be so till the date of filing the present petition. As stated above, according to the petitioner-appellant, respondent-wife was suffering from mental disorder to such an extent that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with her. It has also been stated in the petition that the mental state of affairs of the respondent was suppressed from the petitioner before marriage and he came to know of this fact only after marriage. It has further been stated that mental disorder of the respondent could not be cured inspite of continuous treatment. The petition was resisted by the respondent-wife. She denied the allegation that she was suffering from mental disorder and averred that she had always been normal and acting in normal manner. According to her the present petition has been filed only to get rid of her so that the petitioner-appellant could marry another girl. 3. On the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issue :— “1. According to her the present petition has been filed only to get rid of her so that the petitioner-appellant could marry another girl. 3. On the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issue :— “1. Whether the respondent has been incurably of unsound mind and has been suffering cantinuously from mental disorder of a kind and to the extent that the petitioner cannot be reasonably expected to live with her ?" 4. We have heard Mr. R. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. D. Sood, learned Counsel for the respondent. The relevant section for the purpose of the present dispute is section 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which is quoted below :— "13. Divorce —(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) ….. (i-a) ….. (i-b)…… (ii)……. (iii) has been incurably 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.—In this clause,— (a) the expression "mental disorder" means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia ; (b) the expression "psychopathic disorder" means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub-normality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment" To prove the case of the present appellant-petitioner, petitioner himself deposed before the trial Court and examined Doctor Ravi Sharma as PW 2. Petitioner also examined Shri Prem Chand (PW 3) and Shri Narotam Ram (PW 4) to prove that the respondent was insane. As the only ground for the divorce is mental disorder/psycopathic disorder, the most relevant witness for the present purpose is the Doctor (PW 2). 6. Doctor Ravi Sharma (PW 2) examined the respondent in the year 1990 as per outdoor prescription slip of Indira Gandhi Medical College Shimla These slips have been marked as Ext. PW 2/A to Ex. As the only ground for the divorce is mental disorder/psycopathic disorder, the most relevant witness for the present purpose is the Doctor (PW 2). 6. Doctor Ravi Sharma (PW 2) examined the respondent in the year 1990 as per outdoor prescription slip of Indira Gandhi Medical College Shimla These slips have been marked as Ext. PW 2/A to Ex. PW 2/D. The certificate issued by Doctor has been marked as Ex. PW 2/E. According to same certificate, petitioner was suffering from Chronic Schizophrenia". The Doctor has stated that the above disease is chronic mental illness in which the behaviour-cum-emotions and thinking of the patient is grossly affected. He has further stated that Schizophrenia can not be cured permanently, however, the patient may recover significantly so that the patient can live a reasonably normal social life In cross-examination, the Doctor has stated that he again examined the respondent on 24-3-1992 and she was off drugs. He has also admitted that if the petitioner is reasonably in a good state of mind without the drug, then her condition would be considered as good From the statement of Doctor, we find that certificate issued by him was on the basis of history of respondent given by her husband. We may note here that in cross-examination the Doctor has admitted that respondent seems to be suffering from "Chronic Schizophrenia" illness of unspecified type and is curable. 7. In this connection we may refer the decision of the apex Court in Ram Narain Gupta v Smt. Rameshwari Gupta, (1988) 4 SCC 247, wherein the apex Court has considered the disease Schizophrenia and we quote below para 26 of the same judgment :— "26. "Schizophrenia" is described thus : A severe mental disorder (or group of disorders) characterized by a disintegration of the process of thinking of contract with reality, and of emotional responsiveness. Delusions and hallucinations (especially of voices) are usual features, and the patient usually feels that his thoughts, sensations, and actions are controlled by, or shared with, others. He becomes socially withdrawn and simple in which increasing social withdrawal and personal ineffectiveness are the major changes ; hebephrenic, which starts in adolescence or young adulthood (see hebephrenia) ; paranoid, characterized by prominent delusion ; and catatonic, with marked motor disturbances (see catatonia). Schizophrenia commonly-but no inevitably-runs a progressive course. He becomes socially withdrawn and simple in which increasing social withdrawal and personal ineffectiveness are the major changes ; hebephrenic, which starts in adolescence or young adulthood (see hebephrenia) ; paranoid, characterized by prominent delusion ; and catatonic, with marked motor disturbances (see catatonia). Schizophrenia commonly-but no inevitably-runs a progressive course. The prognosis has been improved in recent years with drugs such as phenothiazines and by vigorous psychological and social management and rehabilitation. There are strong genetic factors in the causation, and environmental stress can percipitate illness." 8. Their Lordships have held that section 13 (1) (iii) does not make the mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify dissolution of marriage and that the context in which the ideas of unsound ness of mind’ and mental disorder’ occur in the section as grounds for dissolution of a marriage, require the assessment of the degree of the mental disorder. Further it is also held that its degree must be such that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other and all mental abnormalities are nor recognized as grounds for grant of decree. According to their Lordships not all schizophrenics are characterized by the same intensity of the disease and burden of proof of the existence of the requisite decree of mental disorder is on the spouse basing the claim on that state of facts. 9. Keeping in view the above ratio laid down, we are of the opinion that the appellant herein has failed to prove that the mental disorder of the respondent was to such an extent that the appellant could not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. We may add here that other witnesses examined by the petitioner in support of his case have only made general statements and their evidence does not inspire confidence on us In this Court the respondent filed an affidavit stating that the appellant has remarried one Smt Tara daughter of Shri Ganga Ram. Reply affidavit was filed by the appellant denying the above allegation and in support another affidavit has been filed. Learned Counsel for the appellant has stated that in view of the above allegation made in this affidavit it amounts to menial cruelty. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on V. Bhatat v. Mrs. Reply affidavit was filed by the appellant denying the above allegation and in support another affidavit has been filed. Learned Counsel for the appellant has stated that in view of the above allegation made in this affidavit it amounts to menial cruelty. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on V. Bhatat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat, AIR 1994 SC 710, to prove that the above allegation by the respondent amounts to mental cruelty. We have perused the said judgment of the apex Court and in our opinion, the facts are different, that apart, the allegation of mental cruelty was never taken by the present appellant in his petition filed before the trial Court. We are therefore, of the opinion that at this stage, the appellant cannot be allowed to raise this plea and the above ratio laid down by the apex Court is not applicable in the case in hand. For the reasons stated above the appeal is dismissed. Costs on the parties. Appeal dismissed.