Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1220 (PNJ)

Roshan Lal v. Kamlesh

2000-10-06

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - Roshan Lal son of Banarsi Das, husband, has filed the present FAO and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.4.1999 passed by the District Judge, Jind, who dismissed the petition of the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against his wife Kamlesh. 2. The brief facts of the case are that marriage between the parties was solemnised on 13.3.1985 at Tohana as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage the parties resided together as husband and wife at Pillukhera Mandi, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. The marriage was consummated but no child was born out of the wedlock. The case of the appellant-petitioner made out in the trial Court was that he came to know that respondent-Kamlesh was a lady of unsound mind and that she had been suffering from intermittently mental disorder. On being enquired in this regard he and his parents were told by the respondent and her parents that Kamlesh was treated for her mental disorder prior to her marriage and doctors had said that she will get cured after some time. The petitioner and his parents believed this fact and the respondent continued to take medicines which were given by her parents. The behaviour of the respondent was abnormal and sometimes she used to be aggressive and violent also. Her conduct was irresponsible towards the petitioner, his parents and other relatives. The petitioner continued to tolerate all this hoping that with the passage of time she will get cured. He got her checked up from various medical experts including Dr. R.C. Garg of Rohtak in the year 1993. Dr. G.B. Adwani, Professor and Head of the Department of S.M.S. Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur diagnosed that the respondent was suffering from "Schizophrenia" and she was of incurable mind and she might become of sound mind to some extent only during brief intervals after taking medicines. The petitioner continued to get her treated, but there was no improvement. She used to abuse the petitioner, his parents and other relatives. She would laugh, cry, sing and dance in the presence of his relatives and friends without any occasion. Her such conduct/behaviour caused mental cruelty to the petitioner. Finding no other alternative he convened a Panchayat of respectables of Pillukhera, Tohana, Jind, Safidon and Panipat etc. on 21.9.1985. She used to abuse the petitioner, his parents and other relatives. She would laugh, cry, sing and dance in the presence of his relatives and friends without any occasion. Her such conduct/behaviour caused mental cruelty to the petitioner. Finding no other alternative he convened a Panchayat of respectables of Pillukhera, Tohana, Jind, Safidon and Panipat etc. on 21.9.1985. Both the parties appointed Laxmi Chand of Safidon, Badlu of Jind, Prem of Tohana, Hukam Chand of Pillukhera and Phool Chand of Panipat as arbitrators, who, after making enquiries from both the parties, directed the petitioner to get the respondent medically examined from Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. Accordingly, he got her medico legally examined in the said hospital. The concerned psychiatrist of the hospital namely Dr. H.K. Matai diagnosed that she was suffering from "Schizophrenia". After keeping the respondent under observation as an indoor patient from 8.2.1995 to 23.2.1995, he prescribed certain medicines to her. She was given six doses of ECT. The said doctor was of the opinion that she was of incurable unsound mind. In view of this fact, the arbitrators directed that the petitioner should keep the respondent at Jind and the mother of the respondent would also stay with them for looking after her. Accordingly, the parties and mother of respondent started living at Jind. They lived at Jind from 10.6.1995 to 1.4.1996. The mental disorder of the respondent did not get cured and her behaviour remained the same. The mother of the respondent took her to Tohana after telling that she would return to Jind after a fortnight. After a fortnight the parents of the respondent told the petitioner in reply to a telephonic enquiry made by him that there was no improvement in her mental condition and she was still suffering from mental disorder. After verifying these facts from both the parties, the arbitrators held a meeting at Tohana on 4.8.1996 for deciding the controversy. They heard both the parties and decided that due to mental disorder of the respondent it was not possible for the petitioner to live with her. They suggested that the petitioner should seek divorce from the respondent. They further held that in spite of the petitioner and his parents having done their best to get the respondent treated for her mental disorder, there had been no improvement as her mental disorder was incurable. They suggested that the petitioner should seek divorce from the respondent. They further held that in spite of the petitioner and his parents having done their best to get the respondent treated for her mental disorder, there had been no improvement as her mental disorder was incurable. With these allegations the petitioner has sought the divorce. 3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent. The respondent controverted all the averments of the petitioner. According to her, she neither was of unsound mind nor she is suffering from any mental disorder. She twice conceived a child - firstly, in May, 1985 and secondly in April, 1986, but both the pRegulation ncies ended into miscarriage. Her case is that she could not conceive thereafter, therefore, the petitioner wants to marry for the second time after giving divorce to her. The petitioner got her checked up at various places but when it was found that she could not bear a child, his behaviour and that of his parents changed. The petitioner told her several times that he wanted to have a child and if she was unfit to bear a child, he had no other option but to get remarried. In 1989, he and his family members started stressing upon her that she should give divorce to the petitioner so that he could remarry. His such type of attitude caused great mental tension and harassment to her and she remained under constant mental stress and burden. She had to spend sleepless nights. The petitioner started giving medicines to her saying that the same will help her in bearing a child, but to no effect. According to the respondent, she never suffered from any mental disorder prior to her marriage. She had passed her matriculation examination with 44% marks and she was well-versed in all the house-hold chores. The story of mental disorder has been created by the petitioner so that he may be able to get divorce from her because she was not in a position to bear a child. It was denied by the respondent that she ever abused the petitioner, his parents and relatives, or that she ever became aggressive, violent, or used to laugh, cry, sing and dance, without any occasion, in the presence of relatives and friends of the petitioner, as alleged. With this broad defence the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 4. It was denied by the respondent that she ever abused the petitioner, his parents and relatives, or that she ever became aggressive, violent, or used to laugh, cry, sing and dance, without any occasion, in the presence of relatives and friends of the petitioner, as alleged. With this broad defence the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 4. The learned trial Court framed the following issue for the diposal of the petition :- "Whether the respondent is suffering from mental disorder and is of incurable unsound mind as alleged ? If so, to what ? OPP" 5. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respect cases on the above issue and on the conclusion of trial, for the reasons given in paras 6 to 11 of the impugned judgment dated 10.4.1999, the petition was dismissed. In this manner, the present appeal by the husband. 6. Before I deal with the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, it will be proper for me to incorporate paras 6 to 11 of the judgment of the trial Court, which reads under :- "6. Before proceeding to discuss the issue, above referred to, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant clause of section 13(1)(iii) of the Act which reads as under :- Divorce :- (1) Any marriage solemized, 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) xxx xxx xxx (ii) xxx xxx xxx (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." 7. Now, let us see as to whether medical evidence which has come on record is sufficient to hold that the respondent is of incurable unsound mind or has been continuously or intermittently suffering from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with her. Dr. Now, let us see as to whether medical evidence which has come on record is sufficient to hold that the respondent is of incurable unsound mind or has been continuously or intermittently suffering from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with her. Dr. R.L. Garg, Psychiatrist (PW1), who had medically treated the respondent, was categorical in stating that the disease (acute paranoid reaction) with which the respondent was found suffering is curable and treatable if the patient takes medicines properly. Similarly, PW2 Dr. Harish Matai, who found the respondent to be suffering from chronic Schizophrenia, also deposed that she had improved by the time she was discharged. In my opinion, the testimony of these two medical experts is, by itself, sufficient to hold that the respondent has not been "incurably of unsound mind." Now, let us see as to whether she has been continuously or intermittently suffering from such mental disorder that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with her ? To appreciate this point, it would be material to note that as per petitioners own admission as PW2, he and the respondent not only lived together for eleven long years but had also (been) having relations of husband and wife for such a long time. It is material to note that it is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent had recently started suffering from the alleged mental disorder. His case is (Re. PW2) that she started suffering from mental disorder just after about 5-6 months of their marriage. The details of alleged mental disorder, he had mentioned in the petition, and the same are that the respondent used to be aggressive and her conduct was irresponsible not only toward him but also towards his parents and other relatives. She used to abuse him, his parents and other relations. She also used to laugh, cry, sing and dance, without any occasion, in the presence of his relatives and friends. But, as it is, neither the parents nor any other relation or friend of the petitioner or even any neighbour of his was produced to confirm the said facts. Non-production of any such person in the witness-box, by itself, is sufficient to hold that there is no truth in the version put forward by the petitioner in the petition or as PW2. Non-production of any such person in the witness-box, by itself, is sufficient to hold that there is no truth in the version put forward by the petitioner in the petition or as PW2. 8. According to the petitioner, some arbitrators had also been appointed for settling the matter between the parties. Out of them two, namely, Raj Kumar and Laxmi Chand, were examined as PW3 and PW5 respectively. The former, as perusal of his statement would show, did not state anything about mental/physical condition of the respondent or her conduct or behaviour. Even the testimony of the other, PW5 Laxmi Chand, does not indicate that the respondent has been suffering from mental disorder of any type. The relevant part of his statement is : "When we enquired about her name from her, she told her name correctly as Kamlesh. She was wearing proper clothes. She did not abuse anybody nor she tore clothes of anybody. She did not misbehave with any of them. About 10- 15 persons were sitting in the last Panchayat. This number included 6-7 persons from the family of her in-laws also. Her father-in-law and her husband Roshan were also sitting there. 4-5 ladies were sitting in the chowk which was outside the room where Panchayat was held. Sometimes Kamlesh used to remove parda while sometimes she was keeping parada from the members of the Panchayat. She remained sitting in the Panchayat for about half an hour." Thus, it is clear from the observations of this witness who had the occasion to watch the respondent for a sufficiently long time, i.e. about half an hour, that the respondent did not exhibit any abnormality of any type (mental or physical). 9. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the respondent appeared in the witness box as RW1 and deposed about every fact relevant to the case. She duly stood the test of cross-examination also. And, as a bare perusal of her statement shows, it is sufficient to conclude that she has a sound mind and she also does not suffer from mental disorder of any type or degree. Parties had, admittedly, nor only lived together for 11 long years but had also been having relation as husband and wife with each other for such a long period. The respondent conceived also, twice, during this period. Parties had, admittedly, nor only lived together for 11 long years but had also been having relation as husband and wife with each other for such a long period. The respondent conceived also, twice, during this period. Not a single relation or witness, except the petitioner himself, has come forward to depose that the respondent had ever behaved in an abnormal, aggressive or even irresponsible way. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to 1977 Law Journal 77, Harpreet Singh v. Smt. Surinder Kaur, in which also divorce had been sought on the ground of mental disorder of wife. The parents of the husband, who were also alleged to be victims of sufferings from the respondents mental disorder, were not examined in evidence and only the appellant in additional to the testimony of a doctor who deposed about the mental disorder of the wife, had appeared in the witness box. The Honble High Court held that "The mental disorder of the respondent spouse, even if proved, cannot by itself warrant a decree for divorce. It must further be proved on record that it was of such a kind and to such an extent that the complaining spouse could not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent." While so holding, the petition for divorce was dismissed by the Honble High Court on the ground that there was nothing on record to conclude that the respondent was suffering from any mental illness or had incomplete development of mind or that her conduct was abnormal, aggressive or seriously irresponsible, and in the absence thereof, it was not possible to hold that the alleged mental disorder was of such a kind and to such an extent that the appellant could not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. Another authority referred to on the point was AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2260, Ram Narain Gupta v. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta, in which the mental disorder with which the wife was suffering had been medically diagnosed as "Schizophrenia". But the Honble Supreme Court held that "Not all schzophrenics are characterised by the same intensity of the disease. The mere branding of a person as schizophrenic therefore will not suffice. But the Honble Supreme Court held that "Not all schzophrenics are characterised by the same intensity of the disease. The mere branding of a person as schizophrenic therefore will not suffice. For purposes of section 13(1)(iii) "Schizophrenia" is what Schizophrenia does." It was further observed in this authority that : "in the context in which the ideas of unsoundness 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". Its degree must be such as that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not recognised as grounds for grant of decree. If the mere existence of any decree of mental abnormality could justify dissolution of a marriage few marriages would, indeed, survive in law." In view of the law enunciated in these authorities, the petitioner just cannot be permitted to legally "discard" the respondent by branding her as being of unsound mind or suffering from continuous or intermittent mental disorder. 10. Before concluding discussion on this issue, it may be added that respondents plea that the petitioner wants to divorce her as she has not been able to bear a child, gets lot of support from petitioners own statement as PW.2 in which he admitted (during cross-examination) that he wanted that the petitioner should bear a child and he got her medico-legally reexamined/checked up from different doctors. The petitioner and his parents, as testified by the respondent as RW1, had started telling her, after her second abortion, that as she could not bear a child, she should divorce the petitioner so that he could marry another woman. The position which, therefore, emerges from these facts and the other above discussed evidence on record is that the respondent did remain under lot of mental pressure and depression on account of her two abortions and also due to the openly expressed views of the petitioner and his parents that she should divorce the petitioner as she could not bear a child so that the petitioner could remarry some other woman. But, certainly there is no evidence on record to show that she has been continuously or even intermittently suffering from such type and degree of mental disorder that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with her. 11. But, certainly there is no evidence on record to show that she has been continuously or even intermittently suffering from such type and degree of mental disorder that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with her. 11. In the light of what has been discussed above, it is held that the petitioner has failed to prove this issue. The same is, therefore, answered against him and in favour of the respondent." 7. I have heard Mr. K.K. Mehta, Advocate on behalf of the appellant, Mr. S.K. Garg, Advocate on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. 8. Seeing the weakness of this case the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted at the first instance that the trial Court had not framed the proper issues in this case. The petitioner has sought the divorce from the respondent on the ground of cruelty as well since the respondent had treated the petitioner with cruelty, therefore, this issue was supposed to be framed by the trial Court and the non-framing of the issue in question has resulted in miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. The learned Counsel stated that let the High Court frame an issue in this regard and the evidence led by the parties may be examined in that light. 9. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant can be replied in the following manner. A stray allegation has been levelled by the appellant in the petition that respondent has treated him with mental cruelty. It is a settled principle of law that the pleadings of the parties have to be read as a whole. In para No. 10 of the petition the appellant has alleged that the respondent treated him with mental cruelty and he has not condoned the acts of cruelty of the respondent. But if the main averments of the petition are read, it will become clear that the petitioner sought the divorce from his wife under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. He did not stress the ground of divorce due to mental cruelty. Be that as it may, I will deal with the evidence of the parties led on the record both from the angle of cruelty as well as from the angle of the issue framed by the trial Court. 10. He did not stress the ground of divorce due to mental cruelty. Be that as it may, I will deal with the evidence of the parties led on the record both from the angle of cruelty as well as from the angle of the issue framed by the trial Court. 10. I have just stated above that the petitioner has sought divorce mainly on the ground that the respondent has been incurably of unsound mind and has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that he cannot reasonably be expected to live with her. "Mental disorder" means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes Schizophrenia. The expression "psychopathic disorder" means 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. Before a spouse may get divorce under the above provisions, it is obligatory upon him/her to prove that the opposite spouse is incurable of unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that it is difficult for the petitioner to live with the respondent under reasonable circumstances. The legislature has made this ground of divorce with certain riders. Every type of mental disorder may not be a ground for divorce until it is established on the record that the mental disorder alleged has gone to such an extent and it is of such a kind that a normal person cannot be allowed to remain with the respondent. In such type of cases relations are very good witnesses because they can depose about the psyche and behaviour of a person complained of. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent had been behaving abnormally in the presence of his parents and relatives, but, strange enough, not a single relation of the petitioner including his parents, or any close neighbour has come in the witness-box to corroborate the factum about the abnormal behaviour of the respondent. The proved facts on the record are that the respondent is an educated girl. The proved facts on the record are that the respondent is an educated girl. She has read upto matric and she had passed her matriculation examination by securing 44% marks. In order to get divorce on the issue framed by the trial Court the appellant has examined certain witnesses and I would like to discuss the evidence of those witnesses one-by-one. 11. The first witness on the record is Dr. R.L. Garg, of Garg Nursing Home Psychiatric Clinic, Rohtak. According to this witness respondent Kamlesh was admitted in his hospital on 6.1.1986 as an indoor patient and she (sic) suspicious character. Would it amount to mental disorder of such a kind and such a nature that it has become difficult for the petitioner to live with the respondent like an ordinary person and the answer of this Court is in the negative. 12. The second witness was the petitioner himself. In his examination-in- chief he sated that the behaviour of the respondent was that if she started laughing, she would continue laughing and if she opened water-tap, she would not close it. If she started dancing she would continue dance etc. When the respondent appeared in the witness-box as RW1, not an iota of suggestion was given to her. The pleaded case was not even put to her. It appears that this part of the case made up by the respondent is totally highly exaggerated and imaginary. The petitioner has even not alleged in his statement that the respondent has treated him with such type of cruelty that it has become health hazardous for him to live with her. Every small cruelty or acts of cruelty on the part of a spouse is not a ground for divorce. In order to succeed on the ground of cruelty, as envisaged under Section 13(1)(ia), it is obligatory on the part of a spouse to allege and prove on record that irresponsible behaviour of the other spouse was of such a kind and to such an extent that it has caused him or her mental cruelty of such a nature that it has become health hazardous for him or her to stay with the respondent. We all know that term "cruelty" has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, it will always be a question of fact depending upon facts of each case. We all know that term "cruelty" has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, it will always be a question of fact depending upon facts of each case. The "cruelty", as understood under the Hindu Marriage Act, includes both mental and physical cruelty. If the petitioner has succeeded in proving that the respondent used to dancing, laughing, crying etc. without any occasion, as alleged by him, certainly these acts would cause mental cruelty to him. But I have just stated above that not a single witness has come in the witness-box to prove the conduct of the respondent, and, therefore, the imaginary allegations of the petitioner cannot be taken on their face value. On the contrary, it appears that the respondent became little bit pensive because she could not conceive a child. The petitioner appears to be eager that respondent should conceive a child. When the miscarriage took place on two occasions, it was natural on the part of the respondent to become little bit pensive and this is not enough for the petitioner to make out a ground of divorce on the pretext that the respondent is suffering from mental disorder. It has been admitted by the petitioner himself that the respondent is an educated lady. The petitioner stated in his cross-examination that the respondent may be matriculate but he has not seen her certificate. 13. PW3 is Raj Kumar, who is the author of the writing Ex.A1, which I will discuss in the subsequent portion of this judgment. PW4 is Dr. Harish Matai, who has proved the discharge-slip Mark A. This document is not in his hand nor it bears his signatures nor he is in a position to identify the handwriting or signatures of the writer on the said document. PW4 deposed that he examined Kamlesh, who was suffering from chronic Schiziphrenia. She was admitted in the hospital on 8.2.1995 and remained admitted upto 23.2.1995 in the private ward. The doctor stated that the patient improved by the time she was discharged. In cross-examination the doctor admitted that he did not know Kamlesh personally. It is only the husbands name which has been mentioned in the record. It is not mentioned as to who had got her admitted in his hospital. He only presumed that husband must have got her admitted. Thus, from the statement of Dr. In cross-examination the doctor admitted that he did not know Kamlesh personally. It is only the husbands name which has been mentioned in the record. It is not mentioned as to who had got her admitted in his hospital. He only presumed that husband must have got her admitted. Thus, from the statement of Dr. Harish Matai it cannot be inferred reasonably that the respondent was suffering from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with her. Even this doctor did not certify to this extent. 14. PW.5 is Laxmi Chand. Of course, in examination-in-chief, he stated that he observed that the mental condition of the respondent was not normal because she was not in a position to talk. In cross-examination this witness vomited out the truth by deposing as follows :- "When we enquired about her name from her, she told her name correctly as Kamlesh. She was warning proper clothes. She did not abuse anybody nor she tore clothes of anybody. She did not misbehave with any of them. About 10-15 persons were sitting in the last Panchayat." It has also been stated by this witness in cross-examination that sometimes Kamlesh used to remove parda while sometimes she was keeping parda from the members of the Panchayat. She remained sitting in the Panchayat for about half an hour. This conduct on the part of the respondent clearly indicates that she was not suffering from any problem much less to such an extent that she was a case of mental disorder within the meaning of Section 13(1)(iii). We can take judicial notice of our rustic ladies that they do not talk much when menfolk are sitting in the assembly, rather these women give respect to their elders both on the parental as well as in-laws side. So such so, it has been admitted by PW5 that respondent was responding to the queries. 15. The above is the only evidence which has been led by the petitioner. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that the petitioner has not examined any relative or any independent person or any person from the neighbourhood to prove the conduct of the respondent which is very relevant in these type of cases. 16. 15. The above is the only evidence which has been led by the petitioner. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that the petitioner has not examined any relative or any independent person or any person from the neighbourhood to prove the conduct of the respondent which is very relevant in these type of cases. 16. As against the statements of the witness of appellant, we have got the statement of Kamlesh, respondent, who appeared as RW1. She gives the date of her marriage as 13.3.1985. She states that she stayed with the appellant for ten years. She conceived child on two occasions but on account of miscarriage she could not deliver a child. She is a matriculate and she got 44 per cent marks in matriculation examination. It has further come in her statement that she can attend to all the house-hold chores. She knows painting and embroidery and she never suffered from any mental disorder. She never took medical treatment for any such disease. There can be some concealment on the part of the respondent, but that does not mean that the respondent is a lady of unsound mind or suffering from mental disorder. She was cross-examined at some length and she suffered the stress of cross-examination. Not an iota of suggestion was given to the respondent that she used to laugh, dance, cry and also used to tear the clothes, or that she had been behaving abnormally, or that she was suffering fits, or that she was a case of Schizophrenia. 17. RW2 Gian Chand deposed that respondent is not suffering from any mental disorder, rather the petitioner had been telling him that Kamlesh was not in a position to bear child and, therefore, he wanted to marry another woman. 18. From the above evidence this Court comes to the conclusion that the appellant has miserably failed to prove the issue framed by the trial Court. 19. Now it has to be seen whether the appellant has been able to make out a case of cruelty. Part of the discussion I have already held above. Much reliance has been placed on Ex.A1. This document is not helpful to the appellant as it is not the admission of the respondent. 19. Now it has to be seen whether the appellant has been able to make out a case of cruelty. Part of the discussion I have already held above. Much reliance has been placed on Ex.A1. This document is not helpful to the appellant as it is not the admission of the respondent. Moreover, the author of the document Ex.A1 has not given any reason on what basis the Panchayat has formulated the opinion that respondent was a lady of mental disorder or that her conduct caused any mental cruelty to the petitioner. There is no corroboration at all. In Ram Narain Gupta v. Smt. Rameshwari Guptas (supra) it was observed by their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court that in order to succeed on the ground of mental disorder, the mere branding of spouse as Schizophrenic is not sufficient and degree of mental disorder of the spouse must be proved to be such that petitioner spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with each other. In this cited case, it was observed as follows :- "The context in which the ideas of unsoundness 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". Its degree must be such as that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not recognised as grounds for grant of decree. If the mere existence of any degree of mental abnormality could justify dissolution of a marriage few marriages would, indeed, survive in law. "Schizophrenia", it is true, it said to be difficult mental affliction. It is said to be insidious in its onset and has hereditary predisposing factor. It is characterized by the shallowness of emotions and is marked by a detachment from reality. In paranoid-states, the victim responds even to fleeting expressions of disapproval from others by disproportionate reactions generated by hallucinations of persecution. Even well meant acts of kindness and of expression of sympathy appear to the victim as insidious traps. In its worst manifestation, this illness produces a crude wrench from reality and brings about a lowering of the higher mental functions. But the personality- disintegration that charaterises this illness may be of varying degrees. Not all Schizophrenics are characterised by the same intensity of the disease. In its worst manifestation, this illness produces a crude wrench from reality and brings about a lowering of the higher mental functions. But the personality- disintegration that charaterises this illness may be of varying degrees. Not all Schizophrenics are characterised by the same intensity of the disease. The mere branding on a person as Schizophrenic therefore will not suffice. For purposes of Section 12(1)(iii) "Schizophrenia" is what Schizophrenia does". 20. Thus, the slight mental deformity found with the wife is not a good ground for divorce. When a person is levelling all these types of allegations, he is supposed to lead such evidence of those persons who may be in a position to say about the individual or collective acts of the spouse complained of. The appellant-husband has not even examined his parents. Therefore, the bald statement of the appellant cannot be made a valid ground for divorce. In this regard reliance can be placed on Pramatha Kumar Maity v. Ashima Maity, AIR 1991 Calcutta 123. In Harpreet Singh v. Smt. Surinder Kaur, 1994(3) PLR 312 this Court held that to succeed under Section 13(1)(iii) it is necessary for the husband to show that the wife has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder and this mental disorder should be of such a kind and to such an extent that he cannot reasonably be expected to live with her. In the cited case, the lady was though an educated but she was suffering from some sort of abnormalities and it was concluded that lady was not suffering from such mental illness so as to constitute a good ground for divorce. Incomplete development of mind is different from the mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that it is not reasonably be expected to live a spouse with the other spouse. 21. The cases in which it was observed that the wife is suffering a mental disorder can be quoted in the following manner :- (i) Vinod Kumari v. Major Surinder Mohan, 1984 Hindu Law Reporter 508. (ii) Balwinder Kaur v. Baldev Singh, 1985(1) HLR 97. (iii) Asha Rani v. Raj Kumar, 1994(2) HLR 114. In Vinod Kumaris case (supra) there was an admission on the part of the lady that she used to lose temper and she used to be given medicines. It was also established that the wife was suffering from Schizophrenia. (ii) Balwinder Kaur v. Baldev Singh, 1985(1) HLR 97. (iii) Asha Rani v. Raj Kumar, 1994(2) HLR 114. In Vinod Kumaris case (supra) there was an admission on the part of the lady that she used to lose temper and she used to be given medicines. It was also established that the wife was suffering from Schizophrenia. She was aggressive and prone to abusing and she used to curse her husband and neglected him with food and she used to sleep separately at odd hours. She was under the impression that her food had been mixed with poison. There is no such evidence in the present case. In Balwinder Singhs case (supra) it was proved that wife was suffering from mental disorder even before the marriage and she was so greatly excited that she tried to commit suicide. In Asa Ranis case (supra), the wife was a case of insanity and it was proved by oral and documentary evidence that the wife had been mentally sick and it was impossible for the husband to live with her under those conditions. While dismissing this appeal the reliance can always be placed upon the judgment of this Court given in FAO No. 41-M of 1997 titled Smt. Veena Rani v. Mohinder Kumar,. After considering all the pros and cons of the matter, the appeal is found without any merit and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal dismissed.