D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order dated 12-12-1996 passed in O. P. No. 15of 1992 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, kakinada. ( 2 ) O. P. No. 15 of 1992 was filed by the husband-appellant, seeking divorce on the ground of insanity (incurable unsoundness of mind) and the same was rejected by the court below. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant-husband. For convenience sake, the parties hereinafter, are referred to as husband and wife ( 3 ) THE spouses are closely related. To be more precise, the husband was the son of the respondent s maternal grandmother s sister before marriage. The spouses knew each other very well before their marriage. Subsequently, marriage was performed and solemnized. Later, husband, after completing his graduation in engineering, went to United states of America and later took his wife also and by that time wife was actually doing her law. After the wife landed in States and joined her husband, it is alleged that the wife was suffering from some mental disorder and she was given treatment for the same. She was put on drugs also in 1988. The husband sent the lady back to India along with his friend, and saw that she was taken custody by her parents. To that extent, the wife was safe. The story subsequently is somewhat interesting. It appears, she allegedly addressed letters to the employer of the husband that he was suffering from mental ailments. As a consequence thereof, the husband lost his employment and came back to India and since then he has remained unemployed. Whereas, the wife completed law course and joined the Bar and started practice at Ramachandrapuram. The husband, after some time filed the present o. P, seeking divorce on the ground that the wife was suffering from unsoundness of mind, as defined under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act ), which is extracted hereunder for ready reference: "13. The husband, after some time filed the present o. P, seeking divorce on the ground that the wife was suffering from unsoundness of mind, as defined under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act ), which is extracted hereunder for ready reference: "13. Divorce:- (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by eitherthe husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party, (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. " ( 4 ) WE have perused the evidence on record. The documentary evidence discloses that there was exchange of letters before marriage and after marriage as well. The letters addressed by the husband to the wife, which were marked as Exs. B-2, B-3, and b-5 to B-11, disclose that the husband, in fact, was suffering from mental ailments and it was not explicable and he was in fact on drugs also. There is no whisper in those letters about the unsoundness of mind of the wife, but it is true that he was enquiring about her welfare and health. It was only after she was taken to United States, the problem appears to have started that was somewhere in the year 1998. ( 5 ) THE appellant sought for introduction of certain additional material papers in order to prove cruelty and desertion under sections 13 (l) (ia) and 13 (l) (ib) respectively. From the said material papers one Mr. Kevin r. Wandler, addressed a letter about psychiatric condition of the wife, but this court is unable to understand to whom the said letter was addressed, as it was addressed as to Whom it may concern". Admittedly, the husband came back to India in the year 1993. Had this letter been addressed to the husband, it must have been addressed by the name of the husband. Therefore, we are unable to understand under what circumstances the letter came to existence, and further the contents were neither proved nor examined by anybody. Admittedly, the husband came back to India in the year 1993. Had this letter been addressed to the husband, it must have been addressed by the name of the husband. Therefore, we are unable to understand under what circumstances the letter came to existence, and further the contents were neither proved nor examined by anybody. The other document, which appears to be discharge certificate, also refers to psychic ailment of wife, and it was further opined in the said discharge certificate by Kevin Wandler "that she stands a good chance of maintaining and controlling her illness". The progress note in the said document reveals the mental status of the wife as under:- "o/ Mental Status Exam: Patient was dressed in sari, good grooming and hygiene; affect was blunted/labile; tearful on occasion; Mood was sad; speech- mute most o interview; Motorgets up gone during interview to wald around office; AIMS=0; Thoughts were logical?/paranoid (feels someone is hiding things at home); No delusions/ denies suicidal-homicidal ideation/clear sensorium" ( 6 ) THE following medicines were suggested: "a/1: schizo-Affective Disorder, patient not doing well since hospital discharge. P/1. Navane 20mg 1 po q 9. 00 a. m. , 1 poq 3. 00 pm, 2po qhs # 120 1 refill 2. Cogentin 2 mg po bid # 601 refill 3. Pamelor 50 mg po qhs #301 refill 4. to return PRN ( 7 ) IT is not known what was the treatment given to the wife after she came back to India in the year 1988, but, it was not in dispute that the wife completed her law course and joined the Bar also. The husband came back to india in the year 1993 and nothing is on record that as to what steps were taken by the husband to enquire about the health of his wife. Nothing has been brought on record nor any attempt was said to have been made by the husband to see the wife s chance of leading marital life. In such a case, the only and unavoidable inference that can be drawn is that in fact the wife was deserted way back in 1988 itself on the ground of un-sound mind. This conduct on the part of the husband clearly denotes his deliberate attitude to avoid his wife. Therefore, the conduct on the part of the husband amounts to desertion in 1988, followed by cruelty later. This conduct on the part of the husband clearly denotes his deliberate attitude to avoid his wife. Therefore, the conduct on the part of the husband amounts to desertion in 1988, followed by cruelty later. ( 8 ) THAT apart, as already noticed, the husband was also ailing from some disorder as could be demonstrated from exhibits, which have already been referred to above. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the wife addressed a letter to the employer at USA, complaining that the appellant was suffering from mental illness and consequently he lost his job and came back to India. But as pointed out above, he was suffering from mental ailment before the marriage and it is not known, how long since he was suffering or suffered from such mental ailment. This fact had totally been suppressed by the husband before the doctors, nor did he undergo any treatment at USA. Even if he has taken any treatment, nothing is shown on record that he underwent treatment for the admitted mental disorder. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was subjected to cruelty and desertion, and consequently, CMP No. 1472 of 2005, seeking permission of this court to raise additional grounds for the conduct of the wife, falls within the ambit of Section 13 (1 ) (ia) and 13 (1) (ib), apart from original ground i. e. , section 13 (1) (iii), though ordered, are liable to be rejected as not sufficient to establish the above averment and accordingly, rejected. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed reliance on V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat wherein, the Apex Court held that mental cruelty in Section 13 (1) (ia) can broadly be defined, as that conduct, which inflicts upon the other party, such mental pain and suffering, as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In Praveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, the Apex Court held that the cruelty includes mental cruelty and it is difficult to establish mental cruelty by direct evidence and while observing so, their lordships had taken into consideration of the case reported in g. V. N. Kameswara Rao v. G. Jabillp, wherein it was observed that the cruelty has to be judged not from a solitary incident, but on an overall consideration of all relevant circumstances. ( 10 ) THE above two judgments referred to above, though unexceptionable, are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, as pointed out in the case of G. V. N. Kameswara Rao v. G. Jabilli (2002) 2 SCC 296 , (3 supra), overall circumstances have to be taken into consideration in order to arrive at a conclusion that it was a fit case to grant divorce or not. As already discussed, the other circumstances, in fact, are against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. The learned counsel further placed reliance on the judgment reported in t. Hari Kumar Naidu v. Smt. Prameela wherein a division bench of our High Court, held that where the wife is alleged to be suffering from Schizophrenia (mental disorder), it is just and reasonable to take medical evidence on record to decide the said question than oral evidence. The said observation also, no doubt, unexceptionable. ( 11 ) BUT in the instant case, it is to be seen that the additional evidence that was pressed into service, would only reveal that the wife was only subjected to some treatment in usa, but the same was not established. As already noticed, under what circumstances, the opinion of the doctor dated 15th January 1992 was obtained, is not known. As a matter of fact, this circumstance has to be treated as doubtful circumstance against the husband and further, in the discharge certificate, it was opined by the doctors that the wife was improving well. Therefore, the said observations are not applicable to the present case nor the condition of the wife cannot be brought under the category of section 13 (1 ) (ib ). ( 12 ) COMING to the original ground i. e. , unsound mind of the wife, as already discussed in the aforementioned paragraphs, we do not find any justifiable reasons to interfere with the order passed by the court below for the reason that the appellant had utterly failed in establishing that the wife was suffering from mental disorder and has been suffering from such disorder even as on today. ( 13 ) IN this context, it is to be further seen that the ingredients of Section 13 (1) (iii) i. e. , unsound mind of the spouse, who has been suffering continuously orintermittently,cannot be held to be present in the instant case. ( 13 ) IN this context, it is to be further seen that the ingredients of Section 13 (1) (iii) i. e. , unsound mind of the spouse, who has been suffering continuously orintermittently,cannot be held to be present in the instant case. Even if such disorder is intermittent it should be of such a nature and extent that the spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. The said ingredients, in view of the facts and circumstances already referred to above, in our considered view, have not been satisfied hence, we do not find any merit in the appeal warranting interference with the impugned order passed by the court below. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.