Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred under Sec. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 whereby the appellant-husband has challenged the decree in the Matrimonial Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Sec. 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties were married at and started living with her husband at Birsanagar in the town of Jamshedpur. A child was also borne out of the wed-lock. 2. The husbands case is that respondent was suffering from unsoundness of mind which according to the appellant was evident from the fact that she was once admitted at Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi where she was treated by Dr. A.B. Mukherjee for psychopathic disorder and in support of that relevant documents were filed before the court Below. The appellant alleged that the respondent became dangerously lunatic. She even attempted to strangulate her child. The husband cited instances of abnormal behaviour of respondent from which it is established that she was suffering from mental illness. 3. That allegations made by the husband in his application for dissolution of marriage has been strongly refuted by the wife in her written statement. The respondent alleges that from the very day she went to her husbands place, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law made sarcastic remarks about her. After two days she returned to her fathers place and narrated the incident which happened in her in-laws place Her parents asked her to cool down hoping the matters should get settled in course of time. She again returned to her in-laws place but had to several humiliation in the hands of her mother-in-law and sister-in-law who always found different fault with each and every action of the respondents. She became pregnant in the mean time and returned to her parents house. The appellant or his parents did not brother for the welfare of the respondent and did not care to call her back. The brother and uncle of the respondent went to the appellants house and requested them to bring. respondent back but the request was turned down on some pretext. She was not brought back with some ill motive. In December 1995 a male child was born to the respondent. Intimation of the birth was given to the appellant but no body came to see the respondent and her son. respondent back but the request was turned down on some pretext. She was not brought back with some ill motive. In December 1995 a male child was born to the respondent. Intimation of the birth was given to the appellant but no body came to see the respondent and her son. However, on 30.3.1986 some relation of the appellant took respondent to Jamshedpur where she was subjected to mental and physical torture. Even she was not allowed to meet any person in the neighbourhood. Even the brother of the respondent was not allowed to meet her. She was allegedly kept confined in a small dark room for two days without food and water ultimately she was rescued and brought by her brother to Ranchi. All these happened due to inability of the respondentsv parents to give Rs. 25,000.00 cash as dowry to the appellant. The respondent holds the sister of the appellant and his uncle responsible for spoiling the matrimonial life of the parties. 4. The learned Addl. District Judge having analysed the evidence adduced by the parties reached to the following conclusion in para 12 of his judgment: 12. After going through the oral and documentary evidence on record as discussed above I find that allegations as made by the applicant against the respondent are not cogent and credible. The medical ground of mental sickness of the respondent by the appellant is not a such ground to as to fulfil the conditions as enumerated under Sec. 13(1)(III) of the Hindu Marriage Act so as to dissolve the marriage between the parties and to grant a decree for divorce to the applicant. It is also clear that mental torture was caused hardship by the applicant. Accordingly these issues are decided against the applicant and in favour of it respondent. The application was accordingly rejected without costs. 5 The finding of the learned Judge is dismissing the petition of the appellant has been assailed before me by Shri N.K. Prasad learned Counsel for the appellant inter alia on the ground that the finding of the learned Judge is contrary to the evidence on record. Learned Counsel submitted that there was overwhehning evidence en record to suggest that the respondent was suffering from Mental disorder convered by Sub-sec. 2(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955. 6. Learned Counsel submitted that there was overwhehning evidence en record to suggest that the respondent was suffering from Mental disorder convered by Sub-sec. 2(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955. 6. Before dealing with the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant it would be necessary to refer to the judgment which reveals nature and character of the evidence brought on record by the parties. 7. So far as the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant are concerned the most important witness is Dr. Dinkar Minz, Sr. Medical Officer, CIP. Kanke I have to straight-way come to the evidence of Dr. Dhinkar Minz. The Mence of this witness is that the respondent was treated as outdoor patient from 13.1.1984 to 26.2.1984 and again from 6.5.1986 to 4.11.1986. He has stated that schizophrenia is a disease which can be cured, in other words is not an incurable disease. According to the evidence of this doctor respondent was examined for the first time on 14.7.1986 and again on 12.8.1986. The doctor has admitted the behaviour of the respondent could not be characterised as mental retardation. 8. The question for consideration is as to whether the reasons given by the learned Judge dismissing the application is based on correct finding. It is stated earlier that the case of the appellant is that the respondent has been suffering from unsoundness of mind to such a degree which is not a cureable as such the appellant can not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. The respondent on the other hand, contends that the case sought to be made by the appellant is master piece work of an Architect engineer of a fake litigation. This is a device to punish the respondent not bringing sufficient dowry with her. The respondent has made serious allegation against the appellant in her written statement with facts and figures. 9. The evidence of Jishu Ranjan Mullick examined as witness No. 1 on behalf of the appellant is cryptic and does not inspire any confidence. He has not stated as to how he was connected with the appellant or the respondent and as to how he knew about the illness of the respondent. He has stated in his cross examination that he was not in family term with the appellant. The evidence of this witness appears to be absolutely worthless. 10. The next witness Dinkar Minz is Sr. He has stated in his cross examination that he was not in family term with the appellant. The evidence of this witness appears to be absolutely worthless. 10. The next witness Dinkar Minz is Sr. Medical Officer Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi. He is attached with the institute since 1985. He was summoned to produce certain documents of the institute. After looking to the records he deposed that as per the records Bimla Sharma was treated as out door patient from 13.8.1984 to 26.12.1984 and during the said period she was treated for six times, The diagnosis was that she was suffering from acute Schizophrenia. She was again treated from 6.5.1986. The disease was same. She had come for re-check up. This doctor had also examined respondent. The prescription is also in his pen. Prescription (Ext. 1) given by this witness and this shows that the respondent was prescribed certain medicines. It is not stated that the respondent was suffering from Schizophrenia. Similarly Exts 1/1 and Ext. 3 are silent about the diagnosis of the respondent. The other physician namely, Dr. L.N. Sharma who had examined the patient was not produced in court. The best evidence to determine whether the respondent was suffering from acute schizophrenia is the medical evidence. Although in the application the appellant has made numerious allegation against the respondent but it is evident that he has spoken only about the illness of the respondent. The respondent Bimla Sharma was examined as O.P. 2 and in her deposition there is no iota of any indication that she was suffering from unsoundness of mind, or Schizophrenia. She has denied all the allegations made in the application, filed by the husband. She has denied that she was over suffering from mental ailment. 11. The respondent Bimla Sharma was examined as O.P. 2 and in her deposition there is no iota of any indication that she was suffering from unsoundness of mind, or Schizophrenia. She has denied all the allegations made in the application, filed by the husband. She has denied that she was over suffering from mental ailment. 11. In the case of Pranab Kumar Ghosh V/s. Krishna Ghosh -- , a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that "in the absence of any allegation of permanent unsoundness of mind of the spouse in question, the onus is firmly cast on the petitioner who challenge the validity of the marriage on the ground of lunacy of the other pouse and it is his duty to adduce such materials from which a reasonables inference, may be drawn as to the lunacy of the party and that the Courts conscience must be satisfied before such a decree annulling the marriage be passed." It is therefore, incumbent duty of the court to consider the materials on record, the circumstances arising therefrom the reliability of the witness and such other things which may arise for its consideration, before passing such a decree, especially to the effect to which to put and end to a marital home. 12. In para 20 of the report the learned Judges have considered the medical evidence adduced in that case. In the Calcutta case the doctor examined on behalf of the applicant described the various symptoms indicative of the fact that the patient was suffering from Schizophrenia. The evidence in the Calcutta case is full of details and not cryptic as in the instant case. The learned Judges after analysing of the evidences found that the evidence unmistakably went to show that on the day of marriage the wife must have been suffering from schizophrenia. The evidence in this case is not sufficient to hold that the respondent was suffering from Schizophrenia The trial judge was, therefore, right in dismissing the application. 13. On analysis of the evidence on record and on considering the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, I am of the view that the Matrimonial court has come to the right conclusion and dismissed the application. 14. 13. On analysis of the evidence on record and on considering the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, I am of the view that the Matrimonial court has come to the right conclusion and dismissed the application. 14. Shri N.K. Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant lastly submitted that even if finding of the Matrimonial court is affirmed, considering the other facts and circumstances of the case and the decree of divorce ought to be passed by this Court. This contention is based on, a recent decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in 1955 SC page 2170; Smt. Snah Prabha V/s. Rabindra Kumpr. In this case, the husband obtained a decree of restitution of conjugal right against the wife. The appeal preferred by the wife was dismissed by the Punjab and Hariyana High Court. The wife went in appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court. The Hon ble Supreme Court taking into account the back ground of the case, granted a decree of divorce because there was no chance of the parties living together. In the instant case, the husband and wife are separate for last 10 years and there is no chance that they shall live together even if the appeal dismissed. It can be said the marriage between the parties have broken-down irretrevity. This was the main ground of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sheh Prabha case granted decree of divorce. 15. Considering the welfare of the parties, I grant decree for divorce to the parties with immediate effect. The appellant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 75.000.00 to the respondents wife in three equal instalments. The appellant is, therefore, directed to pay a sum of Rs 75,000.00 in three equal instalments within six months from today. There will be no order as to costs. This appeal is thus disposed of.