Honble MUKHERJI, CJ.–This appeal is filed by Smt.Sunita Sajnani impugning an order dated 16th September, 1996 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 58/92 whereby the appellant was ultimately found to be not mentally healthy. There was however no specific finding given by the learned Judge, Family Court that the appellant was incapable, by reason of any men-tal infirmity, of protecting her interest when she has been sued against by her husband. (2). The parties were married according to Hindu rites on 15th December, 1990 at Udaipur. There was initially an advertisement given in the Rajasthan Patrika in June, 1990 by Ratan Kumar pursuant to which the father of Sunita correspondedwith them and there was an engagement in September, 1990 at Jaipur. The marriage took place on 15th December, 1990. Soon after the marriage it was found that Smt. Sunita had an aversion to go to her husband at Udaipur where he was working as a Clerk-cum- Cashier in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, but ultimately at the instance of her husband she had to seek her transfer at Udaipurwhere they lived for sometime. It is her case that at the behast of her husband she had to suffer an abortion and she became somewhat physically weak. She was serving in the Bank for about 12 years and prior to her transfer at Udaipur on 2.5.1991 she was serving at Jaipur. She got Computer Certificate in 1987. The husband suspected of her mental illness and on 2.5.1992 filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground inter alia that she was suffering from Schizophrenia and, therefore, she was a person of mental disorder or of unsound mind and she was guilty of cruelty. The wife Sunita was not impleaded through guardian despite the allegation made by the husband that she was a person of unsound mind. Whennotice of the petition went to Sunita, she pleaded that she was a person of sound mind and the allegation levelled against her by her husband was false. After some proceedings, the husband filed an application under Order 32 Rule 15 C.P.C. for appointment of the guardian since according to him, his wife was a person of unsound mind. Whennotice of the petition went to Sunita, she pleaded that she was a person of sound mind and the allegation levelled against her by her husband was false. After some proceedings, the husband filed an application under Order 32 Rule 15 C.P.C. for appointment of the guardian since according to him, his wife was a person of unsound mind. The wife contested the application and pleaded that she was a per-son of sound mind. While that application was being considered by the Family Court, the husband filed an application under Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for withdrawing the application with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. The notice of the application was given for the same day in the afternoon for filing reply and for arguments. The wife could not file thereply and the time she sought for to file an objection having been declined, by a short order without giving reasons, the Family Court allowed the application without recording the finding that there was a formal defect in the application for annulling the marriage and granted permission to the husband to file a fresh suit. The wife thereafter filed an appeal before this Court. (3). A Division Bench of this court by a judgment and order dated 27th September, 1994 in D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 65/93 observed inter-alia that the appeal filed by the wife deserves to be allowed. Non-impleading of the guardian was not a formal defect, but that was a curable one and for that reason the Family Court gave an opportunity to the husband to move an application for appointmentof guardian. The Division Bench observed that the question of appointment of guardian would arise only after the Court records a finding that the wife is a person of unsound mind and in making such a finding, an enquiry will have to be made. Admittedly, in this case at the relevant time no enquiry was made. The Division Bench observed that the question of appointment of guardian would arise only after the Court records a finding that the wife is a person of unsound mind and in making such a finding, an enquiry will have to be made. Admittedly, in this case at the relevant time no enquiry was made. The Division Bench accordingly set aside the order of the Family Court granting permission tothe husband to withdraw the application for annulment of marriage and to file a fresh one and directed the earlier application to be restored and the Family Court Judge was asked to decide whether the wife is a person of unsound mind and it was made clear that if the Family Court Judge records a finding that she is a person of unsound mind, only then a guardian could be appointed and not otherwise. Whenthe apprehension was raised on behalf of the husband that if the finding is recorded that the wife is a person of sound mind, the main petition would have to be dismissed, the Division Bench answered the question to the effect that indeed that would be the result and it would be inevitable result which will follow. The Division Bench accordingly asked both the parties to appear before the Family Court on 24thOctober, 1994. (4). After the matter was remanded back to the Family Court, it commenced an enquiry. The husband Ratan Kumar was examined as A- DW 1. One Dr.D.M. Mathur was examined as A-DW 2 and Dr. Ved Prakash Sharma was examined as A-DW3. The documents Ex.1 to 25 were exhibited. The appellant Sunita was alsoexamined as NA-DW1. Ultimately, the Family Court came to a finding that the appellant-wife was not mentally healthy. (5). A casual look at the judgment would reveal that learned Family Court Judge has not given any finding regarding capability of the appellant in protecting her rights in defending the petition filed against her under Section 13 of the HinduMarriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. The learned Family Court Judge has not considered the provisions of Order 32 Rule 15, C.P.C. in the proper perspective. A-DW1- respondent Ratan Kumar has no where stated any thing regarding the incapability of the appellant-Sunita that she is unable to protect her interest and that is why an appointment of guardian is necessary. The learned Family Court Judge has not considered the provisions of Order 32 Rule 15, C.P.C. in the proper perspective. A-DW1- respondent Ratan Kumar has no where stated any thing regarding the incapability of the appellant-Sunita that she is unable to protect her interest and that is why an appointment of guardian is necessary. It is an admit-ted fact that both the husband and the wife are serving in the same Bank. The appellant wife is posted at State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Regional Office-I, Udaipur as a Clerk-cum-Typist, whereas the respondent-husband is working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the same Bank at Chetak Circle Branch, Udaipur. It was stated by the husband Ratan Kumar that after six months of the marriage they went toBombay and Mahabaleshwaraam just for outing and they were living under the same roof and they continued to live under the same roof for near about one year. It has also been admitted by him that the wife Sunita drives moped and regularly goes to the Bank. In support of his contention no neighbours or colleagues have been examined on his behalf and he failed to prove that the appellant-Sunita is aperson of unsound mind and unable to protect her right so as to properly defend her in a suit of a matrimonial nature where a decree for dissolution of marriage has been claimed against her on the ground of her mental disorder of an intermittent nature of such a kind and to such an extent that the husband cannot be reasonably expected to live with the wife who is said to be suffering from mental disorder ofpsychopathic disorder. (6). We have gone through the testimony of A-DW2 Dr. D.M. Mathur, who frankly conceded that he could not identify Sunita as to whether she was the same patient whose name had been mentioned in Ex.18 or not. Ex. 18 was of the year 1984, a prescription of the doctor. He stated that on 9.11.1991 he examined the appe- llant Sunita, but he cannot say what was the nature and type of schizophrenia. He merely states that he has interviewed the patient only for 15 minutes. He cannot say with certainty whether her disease is curable or not. He further testified that he could only tell whether the disease has been cured or not only after examination of the patient. He merely states that he has interviewed the patient only for 15 minutes. He cannot say with certainty whether her disease is curable or not. He further testified that he could only tell whether the disease has been cured or not only after examination of the patient. He admitted that previously a report Ex.A1 was issued by the Medical Board consisting of three doctors of which he was one and there was no pressure or influence or any other extraneous factor on any person in issuance of such Certificate. It is to be pointed out in this context that Ex.A1 is a report of the Medical Board showing that there was no mental infirmity in the appellant Sunita, but it wasobserved that (1) she is well, clad, kumpt, cooeprative (2) Psychomoler activity- average (3) Mood-Appropriate (4) She talks coherent, relevant (5) She is well for time, place and person (6) She does not have any hallucination, delusion, obsessions, hysterical features (7) She has fair, bright impression-No psychiatric abnormality observed. Her marks of identification—(1) Brown mole on right angle of jaw(2) Brown mole on kneek right side. It is thus clear that the statement of A-DW2 Dr. D.M. Mathur does not support the contention of the respondent that the appellant Sunita is mentally ill. (7). In so far as the testimony of A-DW3 Dr. Ved Prakash Sharma is concerned, it is clear enough that he never examined the appellant Sunita. He states that on23rd August, 1993 Ratan Kumar submitted an application before him Ex.13 and he has followed comments and a second Medical Board was formed vide Ex.24, but he admitted that the second Medical Board was not formed on the direction of the Court. The appellant Sunita also did not appear before the so-called second Medical Board. It is thus clear enough that the testimony of A-DW3 has no relevance what-soever so as to assess the degree of psychopathic disorder or mental illness of the appellant-Sunita. (8). On the contrary we find that NA-DW1 Sunita gave out the testimony before the Family Court that she lived with her husband for about one year and due to her abortion she became somewhat physically weak, but she is mentally allright. Sheis serving in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur for several years past and prior to her transfer at Udaipur on 2.5.1991 she was serving at Jaipur. Sheis serving in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur for several years past and prior to her transfer at Udaipur on 2.5.1991 she was serving at Jaipur. She got a Computer Certificate in 1987. Ex.A5 and Ex.A2 to Ex.A4 are the Certificates issued by her higher authorities showing her efficiency in the work. Ex.A6 is the Certificate of her general knowledge. Ex.A7 to Ex.A10 clearly show that she has good performance in herwork. She is living all alone at Udaipur City. She was also examined by the Medical Board in which experts in psychiatry were there and they found her quite mentally healthy. She vouched that she was never examined by Dr.K.G. Thanvi. She also stated that she was working as a Clerk-cum- Typist. She is also doing the work of audit in the Bank. She cooks food for herself independently. Her behaviour is goodwith neighbours and with landlord. She has also got staff training, namely, General Banking Phase-II. She is fond of games like Volly-ball, Basket-ball, Badminton etc. She goes to Bank on TVS Moped. Even while coming to the Court on Moped she showed no abnormality. Her work and presence in the Bank was quite regular. She can live with her husband in a proper manner and can serve him being a wife. Allthese averments and testimony go to show that it cannot be said in any manner whatsoever that she is not capable to protect her own interest in the matrimonial suit. (9). It is really a sad state-of-affairs that the Family Court has not done its duty properly and merely relied upon certain statements which were not clearly provedin any manner whatsoever by the respondent. Ex.A1 to Ex.14 could only be proved by producing Dr.Thanvi in the witness box. However, all these documents are not related in any manner in respect of the present enquiry. These documents are of the years 1985 to 1990 and they show at best that Sunita had suffered from some mental disease or mental infirmity or atleast was treated for some psychiatric dis- ease in between the years 1985 and 1990. The contents of the said documents have also not been proved by either producing the writers of the documents or letters or such persons who know the writing of the so-called writers. The contents of the said documents have also not been proved by either producing the writers of the documents or letters or such persons who know the writing of the so-called writers. Even assuming that Ex.A1 was not to be seen as it was prepared after the decision of this Court or if it was not prepared according to Rules, but is very much clear that Ex.A1 supports the contention of Sunita. Apart from that, there is no other evidence in support of the respondents case that Sunita is so infirm that she is not capable of protecting her own interest and she cannot defend her case without a guardian. It is to be pointed out that when the respondent filed a subsequent petition for divorce onthe basis of the order of withdrawal, in that suit no. 30/93, the learned Family Court Judge observed in the order-sheet dated 30.8.93 that having conducted in interview of Sunita, the learned Family Court Judge did not find any mental infirmity in her. The observation regarding the interview of Sunita by the learned Family Court Judge has also some considerable significance and it goes a long way in establish-ing the contention that a case under Order 32 Rule 15, C.P.C. has been clearly proved. (10). We are of the considered view that on the basis of the findings as arrived at, the respondent Ratan Kumar has not been able to make out any case for appointment of a guardian for the appellant Sunita under Order 32 Rule 15 of theCode of Civil Procedure. The learned Family Court Judge has made observations exceeding the scope of enquiry and the finding given by the learned Family Court Judge to the effect that Sunita is not mentally healthy is erroneous. The order can adversely affect her carrer and prejudicially affect her present job which she is occupying under the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. Mere branding of a personthat she is suffering from schizophrenia is not sufficient to get a decree of a divorce on ground of cruelty or mental disorder of psychopathic disorder/nor is it sufficient to invoke the provisions of Order 32 Rule 15, Code of Civil Procedure. Mere branding of a personthat she is suffering from schizophrenia is not sufficient to get a decree of a divorce on ground of cruelty or mental disorder of psychopathic disorder/nor is it sufficient to invoke the provisions of Order 32 Rule 15, Code of Civil Procedure. No sufficient evidence has really come to prove that Sunita really behaved in an odd and inappropriate manner, that there has been any deterioration in the level of her per-formance at work with her employer, the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. (11). We have interviewed Sunita and Ratan Kumar to effect reconciliation in between the parties. We have closely examined Sunita and put her very many questions. We have no iota of doubt that even though she did suffer from mental depression in the past, she cannot be said to be a person of unsound mind or suf-fering from mental disorder far less a person incapable, by reason of her mental infirmity of protecting her interest when she has been sued against by her husband. She frankly admitted before us that in times of mental depression she was advised by her doctors to take some sedative drugs or tranquillisers, about which her mother appearing before us also made a clear admission, but that itself does notprove that Sunita is really suffering from any mental infirmity so as to be taken as incapable of protecting her own interest. It is not a fit case for application of Order 32, Rule 15, C.P.C., far less for appointment of a guardian for safeguarding the interest of the appellant-Sunita. (12). It is in the fitness of things that not only the findings as arrived at by thelearned Family Court Judge should stand set aside but the application under Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure should in the fitness of things be held not to have been properly proved and should stand rejected. This finding will not result in the dismissal of the suit. The husband Ratan Kumar can still pursue this suit of his own and bring in sufficient evidence to prove his case, if he is otherwise compe-tent to do so. (13). With these findings, the appeal stands allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant-wife would be entitled to a cost of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) against her husband Ratan Kumar.