PRAVENDU NARAYAN SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS first appeal is at the instance of the husband petitioner and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20th August, 2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, nadia in Matrimonial Suit no. 235 of 1995 thereby dismissing the application filed by the appellant petitioner under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short H. M. Act) for dissolving the marital tie between the husband petitioner and respondent wife. ( 2 ) THE appellant as the husband petitioner instituted the suit against the respondent wife under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the H. M. Act and the facts of the case as disclosed in the plaint may be summarised as follows: ( 3 ) THE petitioner and the respondent were married on 27th January, 1980 according to their Hindu Rites and Customs and the said marriage was solemnised at the house of the father of the respondent. The petitioner and respondent were very happy in their conjugal life during the whole year of 1980 but, from the month of August, 1981 the respondent was found to talk irrelevant and became desperate in her act and conduct and was found to have lost mental balance. The father of the petitioner as well as the local doctors were of the opinion that she would be all right if she becomes mother, and thereafter, the respondent conceived due to the desire of the petitioner and she gave birth of a male child in August, 1982 whose name is Jubin Ghosh. The petitioner brought respondent before Dr. Bijoy ketu Bose, one of the most eminent doctors and psychiatrist under whom the respondent was a patient of mental disorder from November, 1981 to October, 1983. As there was no improvement of mental disorder of respondent the petitioner brought her before Dr. Gobinda Sen of national Medical College, Calcutta on 19. 1. 84 and she was under his treatment till 2. 9. 94 but nothing improved and, she became more adamant in her conduct and behaviour and started throwing utensils, garments and anything within her reach. ( 4 ) THE petitioner thereafter brought the respondent before Dr. Dipak Sinha on 29. 9. 94 and she was treated under the said doctor upto 6. 10. 94 and as per advice of Dr. 9. 94 but nothing improved and, she became more adamant in her conduct and behaviour and started throwing utensils, garments and anything within her reach. ( 4 ) THE petitioner thereafter brought the respondent before Dr. Dipak Sinha on 29. 9. 94 and she was treated under the said doctor upto 6. 10. 94 and as per advice of Dr. Sinha she was sent to renecure Nursing Home at P-100a, C. I. T. Road, Calcutta -14 on 13. 10. 94 and she was treated there upon 5. 11. 94. She was discharged from the said nurshing home on 6. 11. 94 with apparent improved condition and was taken back to matrimonial home at Ranaghat. At Ranaghat she was under the treatment of local doctor Dipak Sinha and by this time she became arrogant and began to assault the petitioner, his parents and other inmates of the house. On and from 15. 3. 95 the respondent became more furious and arrogant and it became impossible to keep her in matrimonial home and thereafter she was sent to mental hospital at Mankundu on 20. 3. 95 as per advice of Dr. Dipak Sinha. From the mental hospital of Mankundu, the father of the respondent took away her to his village at Kapileswar where the respondent was living with her parents. After filing of the suit, the father and brother of respondent with some antisocial elements came to the house of father of petitioner on 4. 7. 96 at about 10 p. m. and by breaking open the entrance door forcibly, they entered into the said house and kept the respondent there when petitioner was at Bankura, the place of his posting. After getting such news petitioner came to Ranaghat and his mother lodged a diary at Ranaghat P. S. to that effect being G. D. E. No. 328/96 dated 7. 7. 96. The respondent was torturing his old parents by assaulting them and he had to intimate the matter to the district Administrative Authorities including the Police Authorities. ( 5 ) DURING the stay of respondent at Ranaghat when she began to assault parents of the petitioner and his son, he was compelled to file an application before the learned SDJM at Ranaghat being M. P. Case No. 8/96 praying for an order of admitting her in a mental hospital. ( 5 ) DURING the stay of respondent at Ranaghat when she began to assault parents of the petitioner and his son, he was compelled to file an application before the learned SDJM at Ranaghat being M. P. Case No. 8/96 praying for an order of admitting her in a mental hospital. After perusing all documentary evidence, the learned SDJM, ranaghat passed an order on 24. 7. 96 for admission of the respondent at Calcutta pavlov Hospital and she was admitted there on 26. 7. 96 with police escort. She was there upto the month of February, 1997 and he did not dare to take back her and father of the respondent released her from Pavlov Hospital and again brought her to his house. From there she was again admitted at Mankundu Mental Hospital on 22. 4. 98. ( 6 ) THE respondent is suffering from incurable mental disorder since 1981 and it has become impossible on the part of the petitioner to live with the respondent as husband and wife. The cause of action of the suit arose on and from 20. 11. 94 and thereafter on 15. 3. 95. Accordingly, the husband petitioner filed the said application under Section 13 (1) (iii) the H. M. Act for dissolving the marital tie between him and respondent and the said application was registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 235/95. ( 7 ) THE suit was contested by the defendant-respondent by filing written statement wherein she denied all the material averments of the plaint. She inter alia contended that she is a honours graduate in Sociology and obtained the degree in 1979 from Kalyani University. Her marriage with the petitioner was solemnised on 27th January, 1980 and she was never a mental patient at any point of time. She has been wrongly and wilfully represented in the cause title of the suit as lunatic being represented by her father as next friend. She herself executed 'vakalatnama' and entered personally in the suit. After her marriage with the petitioner they lived together happily and a son was born to them in august, 1982 namely Jubin Ghosh who is now aged about 16 years. The learned district Judge made attempt of reconciliation between the parties and at that time the learned Court did not find any abnormality in the behaviour of the respondent. After her marriage with the petitioner they lived together happily and a son was born to them in august, 1982 namely Jubin Ghosh who is now aged about 16 years. The learned district Judge made attempt of reconciliation between the parties and at that time the learned Court did not find any abnormality in the behaviour of the respondent. After the birth of the son, the petitioner, her father-in-law and mother-in-law started misbehaving with her off and on without any reason or rhyme and used to assault her. She was not allowed to mix with anybody of the locality and she was not allowed to cook any food and they always disclosed her as a mad woman. They forcibly treated her by dr. Bijoy Ketu Bose and by Dr. Dipak Sinha, who is a friend of her husband and in many other places by suppressing real facts. The petitioner husband prior to his marriage was in love with one Rekha ghosh, daughter of Sunil Ghosh of Hatikunda within P. S. Haringhata. Rekha ghosh used to visit her matrimonial home and used to spend several hours with the petitioner and her parents-in-law had consent on such illegal act of petitioner. When she raised protest she was assaulted several times by the petitioner and petitioner even disclosed that he will marry Rekha Ghosh. She could not disclose the affair between her husband and Rekha Ghosh for loss of her social prestige. She was mentally shocked on account of the above stated affairs and torture of her husband. She is not at all a patient of mental disorder or lunatic but husband and her parents-in-law are trying to show her as a lunatic. All the stories depicted in the application filed by her husband concerning her mental disorder are false and concocted. The story that on 4. 7. 96 at about 10 p. m. she with her father, brother and some antisocials broke open entrance door of her matrimonial home forcibly and entered into her matrimonial home when her husband was at Bankura is false and motivated. The story introduced by her husband that she used to torture old parents of petitioner and used to assault them are false. Though her husband on several occasions tried to live apart with false plea that she is a lunatic, she wants to live with her husband as a real Hindu housewife. The story introduced by her husband that she used to torture old parents of petitioner and used to assault them are false. Though her husband on several occasions tried to live apart with false plea that she is a lunatic, she wants to live with her husband as a real Hindu housewife. ( 8 ) SHE never became furious or assaulted the parents of petitioner and her son at any point of time. The husband petitioner from time to time has invented different stories for obtaining decree of divorce by false representation and to prove by adopting all means that she is mad. Due to continuous mental torture of petitioner she is suffering from great mental pains and agonies. No summons or notice was served upon her in respect of M. P. Case No. 8/96 of the Court of learned SDJM, Ranaghat and the learned Magistrate before passing the impugned order did not at all examine her to ascertain whether she was insane and was not mentally fit. She was sent to Calcutta Pavlov Hospital by her husband by procuring some doctors' certificates misrepresenting the doctors and Court. She was rather forcibly placed by her husband with the help of police to the lunatic asylum i. e. Pavlov Hospital. All those steps were taken by her husband somehow only for the purpose of obtaining decree of divorce. Her husband intentionally put her in the pavlov Hospital when there was no ailment of her and thereafter the husband petitioner again placed her at Mankundu hospital without any reason. Dr. S. K. Hazra in writing on 5. 2. 99 gave his opinion that she was all right but, inspite of that, her husband has placed her in a nurshing home at Berhampore. Her husband is trying to marry Rekha Ghosh and is trying to get a decree of divorce against her by describing her as mad woman. As all the stories and the allegations made by the husband petitioner are false and frivolous the application for divorce should be dismissed. ( 9 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties learned trial Court framed four issues in all and after discussing the evidence and materials-on-record dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of dismissal of the matrimonial suit the husband has approached this Court in this appeal. ( 10 ) MR. ( 9 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties learned trial Court framed four issues in all and after discussing the evidence and materials-on-record dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of dismissal of the matrimonial suit the husband has approached this Court in this appeal. ( 10 ) MR. Hari Narayan Mukherjee, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Court erred both in law and in fact. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the witnesses produced by the husband and did not consider so many medical papers produced by the husband in support of his case. On the contrary, there was no evidence on the side of the respondent wife and the learned trial Court failed to remember that there was no evidence from the side of respondent wife to challenge the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the husband petitioner. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the learned Judge totally overlooked the explanation added to Clause 13 (1) (iii) of the H. M. Act and did not consider that mental disorder means mental illness or psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind. In the present case the husband both by oral and documentary evidence was able to prove that the respondent wife is suffering from incurable mental disorder. ( 11 ) MR. Mukherjee further submitted that the appellant as husband for the last 15 years before filing the suit for dissolution of marriage tried his best for the treatment of his wife by taking all possible steps and by producing her before several eminent doctors for her examination and even admitting her at government Hospitals, meant for mentally disordered persons namely, Pavlov hospital and Mankundu Hospital. In the present case two doctors have been examined namely, P. W. 4 and P. W. 5 and the husband produced several prescription, medical certificates and other medical papers and there was no ground at all to disbelieve the evidence of p. W. 4 and P. W. 5 and the said medical papers. ( 12 ) MR. Mukherjee also contended that the learned Judge placed reliance mainly on the observation of the District Judge made in the order sheet dated 24. 1. ( 12 ) MR. Mukherjee also contended that the learned Judge placed reliance mainly on the observation of the District Judge made in the order sheet dated 24. 1. 96 at the time of step of reconciliation where it was noted by the District judge that the respondent does not appear to be suffering from any mental disorder at present. The observation of the District Judge dated 24. 1. 96 cannot be regarded as the basis or foundation to come to the conclusion that the respondent wife was not suffering from mental disorder. If she was not suffering from mental disorder, why the respondent wife did not appear in Court for giving evidence after the husband completed his evidence on 19. 4. 01. Since then several dates and opportunities were given to the respondent wife for her evidence but taking several adjournments for almost two years, neither the respondent examined herself as a witness nor, she examined any other witness on behalf of her including her father. ( 13 ) MR. Mukherjee also contended that the letter Ext-B written by the respondent wife to the Superintendent of Calcutta Pavlov Hospital praying for her discharge cannot prove that she was totally cured. In the present matter the respondent was a patient who was suffering from 'schizophrenia', a type of mental disability or disorder and she was suffering intermittently, but the learned trial Court totally misconceived himself into the said matter by placing reliance on Ext-B and dismissed the suit under wrong impression that Ext-B proves that respondent was totally fit and cured. He further submitted that the learned Judge made mistake by dismissing the suit relying on the provisions of Section 23 of the H. M. Act. As the learned trial court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant husband and did not consider at all that there was no evidence from the side of the respondent wife there was no ground to dismiss the suit filed by the husband for divorce. ( 14 ) IT appears that in the cause title respondent was described as lunatic being represented by her father. Her father received the notice of appeal but, inspite of service, did not appear. Under the aforesaid circumstances a Division bench of this Court by order dated 26. 7. ( 14 ) IT appears that in the cause title respondent was described as lunatic being represented by her father. Her father received the notice of appeal but, inspite of service, did not appear. Under the aforesaid circumstances a Division bench of this Court by order dated 26. 7. 05 appointed Deputy Registrar of this court as Court Gurdian of the respondent in terms of the Appellate Side Rules. The Deputy Registrar in his turn appointed Mr. Debabrata Karar as the learned advocate to make submissions in this appeal for the respondent. ( 15 ) MR. Debabrata Karar, learned Advocate accordingly submitted that from the oral and documentary evidence it was not proved at all that the respondent was a lunatic. The husband adopted various methods to represent his wife as if she was lunatic and suffering from mental disorder and a patient of 'schizophrenia'. The husband did not co-operate at all with the respondent in their conjugal life and took wrong steps for her treatment and tried to expose the respondent as a lunatic, though she was not a woman of mental disorder. From evidence it transpires that before marriage the appellant husband was known to the respondent wife when she was a student at Kalyani University and the marriage between the parties was an outcome of their love. Mr. Karar submitted that subsequently the appellant developed illicit relation with one rekha Ghosh and he drove out the respondent wife from his house after assaulting her. ( 16 ) MR. Karar further submitted that in order to obtain a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the H. M. Act there must be conclusive proof that the mental disorder was of such grave nature that it was impossible for the husband to live with the wife and that the mental disorder is not curable at all. Temporary insanity or temporary mental disorder cannot be a ground of divorce. By referring the decision in Sharda v. Dharmpal, reported in 2003 (4) SCC 493, Mr. Temporary insanity or temporary mental disorder cannot be a ground of divorce. By referring the decision in Sharda v. Dharmpal, reported in 2003 (4) SCC 493, Mr. Karar submitted that the Apex Court of India in this decision observed that, it is trite law that for the purpose of grant of a decree of divorce the petitioner must establish that unsoundness of mind of the respondent is incurable or his/her mental disorder is of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with his/her spouse. Medical testimony for arriving at such a finding although may not be imperative but undoubtedly would be of considerable assistance to the Court. However, such medical testimony being the evidence of experts would not leave the Court from the obligation of satisfying itself on the point in issue beyond reasonable doubt. ( 17 ) MR. Karar submitted that this decision clearly indicates that a few instances of short temper or erratic behaviour by the wife may not amount to suffering continuously or intermittently from unsoundness of mind and a few example or erratic behaviour is not sufficient ground for granting decree under section 13 (1) (iii) of the H. M. Act. In the present case from the medical reports it did not transpire at all that the unsoundness of mind of the respondent wife was incurable. Intermittent suffering from mental disorder is not a ground for decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the H. M. Act. Mr. Karar contended that the learned trial Court on appreciation of the entire evidence rightly came to the decision that the husband petitioner failed to make out sufficient ground for obtaining divorce on the ground of mental disorder of wife. There is no ground of interference with the said judgment and order and accordingly the appeal should be dismissed. ( 18 ) WE have given our anxious considerations on the submissions made by the learned Advocates of the parties and we have also carefully perused the evidence and materials-on-record. We find that in order to prove his case the appellant husband as petitioner in the trial Court examined 5 witnesses in all namely, P. W. 1 Debasish Ghosh (husband himself), p. W. 2 Renu Ghosh (mother of P. W. 1), P. W. 3 jubin Ghosh (son of the parties), P. W. 4 Dr. We find that in order to prove his case the appellant husband as petitioner in the trial Court examined 5 witnesses in all namely, P. W. 1 Debasish Ghosh (husband himself), p. W. 2 Renu Ghosh (mother of P. W. 1), P. W. 3 jubin Ghosh (son of the parties), P. W. 4 Dr. Ali Hasan and p. W. 5 Dr. Satyajit Saha. No witness was examined for the respondent wife before the trial Court. The documentary evidence including medical prescriptions, medical certificates and medical papers that were admitted in evidence on behalf of the husband petitioner are Exhibits-1 to 22 series and for the respondent wife documents marked as Ext.-A to C (1) were admitted in evidence. ( 19 ) BEFORE we enter into discussion on legal principles we think it expedient to discuss the nature of oral evidence that was led by the parties before the trial court. Evidence of the husband appellant as P. W. 1 reveals that his marriage with the respondent wife was solemnised on 27th January, 1980 and out of their wedlock a son was born to them in August, 1982. From August, 1981 his wife was talking irrelevant and she lost her mental patience and she was treated by local doctor, who opined that if any child is born the mental disorder of the wife may be removed. His evidence further reveals that his wife was under treatment of Dr. Bijoy Ketu Bose, an eminent doctor and psychiatrist from november, 1981 to October, 1983 but there was no improvement of her mental condition. Thereafter, he consulted with Dr. Gobinda Sen of National Medical college and his wife was under his treatment till 2. 9. 94. She recovered to some extent but thereafter, she again became more adamant in her behaviour and started throwing utensils, garments and anything within her reach. ( 20 ) EVIDENCE of P. W. 1 further reveals that thereafter, he consulted with dr. Dipak Singha on 29. 9. 94 and his wife was under treatment of Dr. Dipak singha upto 6. 10. 94 and Dr. Singha advised him to send his wife to a nursing home namely, Renecure Nursing Home at p-100a, C. I. T. Road, Calcutta -14. She was admitted there on 13. 10. 94 and was under treatment in the said nursing home upto 5. 11. 94 and was discharged on 6. 11. 94. Dipak singha upto 6. 10. 94 and Dr. Singha advised him to send his wife to a nursing home namely, Renecure Nursing Home at p-100a, C. I. T. Road, Calcutta -14. She was admitted there on 13. 10. 94 and was under treatment in the said nursing home upto 5. 11. 94 and was discharged on 6. 11. 94. There was some improvement of his wife and she was taken back to her matrimonial home at ranaghat. Thereafter, she was under the treatment of Dr. Dipak Singha but some days thereafter, she again became arrogant and began to assault him and others and he had to confine his wife in a room finding no other alternative. He informed the parents of his wife but they did not take any step and on the other hand, blamed him. Thereafter, as per advice of Dr. Singha he admitted his wife into Mental Hospital at Mankundu in the District of Hooghly on 20. 3. 95. ( 21 ) P. W. 1 stated that thereafter, he filed the suit for divorce in the year 1995 under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the H. M. Act. His evidence reveals that respondent wife used to assault him, his parents and his son and others. While she was in Mental Hospital at Mankundu his father-in-law released her from that hospital and took away her to his house in village Kapileswar in the month of June, 1996. He is in Government service and was posted in the District of bankura since 1995. On 4. 7. 96 at about 10/10. 30 p. m. a gang of persons including parents of his wife came to his house at Ranaghat and broke open the entrance door and kept the respondent wife in their house. He received that information at Bankura over telephone and came to Ranaghat one day after. His mother lodged one general diary at Ranaghat P. S. over that matter on 7. 7. 96. During that time his wife lost all her mental balance and she was destroying goods of their house. He, thereafter lodged another general dairy at ranaghat P. S. on 16. 7. 96. Thereafter, he filed a petition before the learned sdjm, Ranaghat stating all facts and by the order of the learned Magistrate the respondent wife was admitted at Calcutta Pavlov Hospital on 26. 7. He, thereafter lodged another general dairy at ranaghat P. S. on 16. 7. 96. Thereafter, he filed a petition before the learned sdjm, Ranaghat stating all facts and by the order of the learned Magistrate the respondent wife was admitted at Calcutta Pavlov Hospital on 26. 7. 96 and the said hospital is also known as Gobra Mental Hospital. The respondent wife stayed in the said hospital till February, 1997 and he received the letter dated 5. 2. 97 from the Superintendent of that hospital requesting him to obtain release of respondent from the said hospital. He refused to take back respondent from the said hospital and informed his father-in-law to take steps. On 16. 4. 98 the respondent wife again came back to his house and again started behaving in the same manner and he admitted her again at Mankundu Hospital on 22,4. 98. Thereafter, the respondent was admitted at Bari Seva Niketan, Berhampore. ( 22 ) P. W. 1 produced the prescriptions issued by Dr. Bijoy Ketu Bose, Dr. Gobinda Sen, Dr. Dipak Singha, prescriptions of Mankundu Mental Hospital, other medical papers of Mankundu Mental Hospital, the order of the SDJM, ranaghat passed in M. P. Case No. 8/96, the discharge certificate issued by renecure Nursing Home, vouchers of Renecure Nunsing Home, paper relating to admission of respondent to mental hospitals including the papers issued by pavlov Mental Hospital, vouchers issued by Mankundu Mental Hospital, Bari seva Niketan, Berhampore, some money receipts etc. and these are Exhibits-1 to 22. ( 23 ) HIS cross-examination reveals that when he was giving evidence in court his wife was staying at Bari seva Niketan, Berhampore. He admitted that his marriage with respondent wife was solemnised out of their love. He also admitted that he brought his wife in Court as per order of the Court and he became acquainted with his wife three years before their marriage. He also admitted that his wife is a B. A. (Honours) in sociology. P. W. 1 denied all the suggestions that all the medical papers and prescriptions were procured to show that his wife was suffering from mental disorder and he also denied the suggestion that his wife is fully fit. He also denied the suggestion that he has relation with one lady namely Rekha Ghosh by name. P. W. 1 denied all the suggestions that all the medical papers and prescriptions were procured to show that his wife was suffering from mental disorder and he also denied the suggestion that his wife is fully fit. He also denied the suggestion that he has relation with one lady namely Rekha Ghosh by name. He, of course, stated that he is not willing to live with his wife any more as husband and wife. ( 24 ) EVIDENCE of P. W. 2, the mother-in-law of respondent wife reveals that after marriage P. W. 1 and respondent lived happily for one year and thereafter ava (respondent) started irrelevant talk and began to assault them. Ava was examined by doctor. The menial disease of Ava was not cured even after birth of their child. She was admitted at Mankundu Mental Hospital and Calcutta pavlov Mental Hospital and she is now at nursing home in Berhampore. Her evidence reveals that her daughter-in-law was completely mad and she used to break household articles. In cross-examination she admitted that her son debasish married Ava out of love and her husband is a doctor. She denied the suggestion that the entire story relating to mental disorder introduced by the husband (her son) is false and also denied the suggestion that they had created the medical certificates behind the back of respondent. ( 25 ) EVIDENCE of P. W. 4 Dr. AN Hassan reveals that he is a medical practitioner (psychiatrist) and he practices at Gorabazar in Berhampore town. He runs a nursing home known as bari Seva Niketan near Bhakuri in the District of Murshidabad. He stated that he is treating Ava Ghosh, wife of Debasish ghosh and she was admitted in his nursing home on 17. 5. 99 and she is suffering from chronic 'schizophrenia'. He produced treatment sheet of Ava Ghosh in court which was marked as Ext. 22 and 22 (a ). During cross-examination P. W. 4 stated that husband of Ava Ghosh consulted with him in 1999 and Ava Ghosh was admitted in his nursing home on 17. 5. 99. He stated that he noted the case history as per instruction of her husband and after perusal of some treatment sheets which are actually prescriptions. He did not advice any conformity test for the patient Ava Ghosh relating to her chronic 'schizophrenia'. ( 26 ) P. W. 5 Dr. 5. 99. He stated that he noted the case history as per instruction of her husband and after perusal of some treatment sheets which are actually prescriptions. He did not advice any conformity test for the patient Ava Ghosh relating to her chronic 'schizophrenia'. ( 26 ) P. W. 5 Dr. Satyajit Saha was attached to Calcutta Pavlov Hospital when he gave evidence in Court. He produced some documents before the court as per instruction of Superintendent of the said hospital on the basis of summons sent by Court. His evidence reveals that as per admission register of the said hospital Ava Ghosh was admitted in the said hospital on 26. 7. 96 and she was admitted under Dr. R. R. Ghosal. She was treated for 'schizophrenia' in the said hospital from 27. 6. 96 to 7. 4. 97. His cross-examination reveals that the bed head ticket of Ava Ghosh shows that, she was admitted on being produced by a constable bearing No. 1643 namely Kushal Chandra Das and her husband admitted her in that hospital. P. W. 5 could not say which doctor first attended Ava Ghosh in the Pavlov Hospital. His evidence also reveals that ava Ghosh was discharged on 5. 7. 97 on the basis of risk bond issued by her father as her husband Debasish Ghosh did not take her into his custody and expressed his inability to take Ava Ghosh in his custody. He produced the letter written by Debasish Ghosh, the present appellant, dated 26. 2. 97 and the said letter was marked Ext-A. He also produced a letter written by Ava Ghosh addressed to the Superintendent which was marked Ext- B. His evidence reveals that he personally did not treat Ava Ghosh and he joined Pavlov Hospital only on 1. 7. 97. On 21. 12. 96 the doctor concerned wrote in the treatment sheet of ava Ghosh that the said patient was fit for discharge and there was another entry to that effect on 3. 1. 97 and the said two entries was marked as Exhibits-C and C (1) respectively. ( 27 ) IT appears from the materials lying in lower Court record that evidence on behalf of husband appellant was closed on 19. 4. 2001 and learned trial Court fixed 25. 5. 01 for evidence of the respondent wife. 1. 97 and the said two entries was marked as Exhibits-C and C (1) respectively. ( 27 ) IT appears from the materials lying in lower Court record that evidence on behalf of husband appellant was closed on 19. 4. 2001 and learned trial Court fixed 25. 5. 01 for evidence of the respondent wife. Since, then more than two years passed and the learned trial Court allowed at least 14 dates or adjournments to the respondent wife to examine herself and other witnesses in court in support of her case. But, inspite of giving so many adjournments and taking two years time, the respondent did not lead any evidence in support of the defence case. Accordingly, the learned trial Court heard the argument the learned Advocate for the husband petitioner and delivered the judgment on 20. 8. 03 dismissing the suit. ( 28 ) AFTER going through the oral and documentary evidence produced by the husband it is clear to us that though the appellant and respondent were married in January, 1980 they lived happily for about one and half year after their marriage. From evidence it appears that from August, 1981 the wife lost her mental balance and started irrelevant talks and she became a mental patient. The different medical papers including prescriptions, treatment sheets, admission in Pavlov and Mankundu Mental Hospital, discharge certificates etc. clearly reveal that she was examined by some of the eminent doctors namely, Bijoy ketu Bose and Dr. Gobinda Sen. Besides that, she was examined at Renecure nursing Home, Mankundu Mental Hospital, Pavlov Mental Hospital and also by another doctor namely Dr. Dipak Singha. ( 29 ) IT is not such a case that immediately after noticing signs of abnormality in behaviour of wife in the year 1981, the husband instituted the suit against the respondent wife under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the H. M. Act. The evidence of husband and the medical papers clearly prove that the husband since 1981 tried his best for the treatment of his wife for 14 years so that his wife becomes cure. The patience of the husband for 14 years cannot be ignored as the background of their marriage was their love affair before the marriage and it was not a case of marriage out of negotiation. The patience of the husband for 14 years cannot be ignored as the background of their marriage was their love affair before the marriage and it was not a case of marriage out of negotiation. It transpired from evidence that before marriage the husband was known to the respondent wife for three years and their love culminated in their marriage. During those years there was no sign of mental disorder and nobody knows when suddenly signs of insanity, mental disorder, 'schizophrenia' and other mental disease would develop within a man or woman. The evidence before us is that, after their marriage in January, 1980 they lived happily till August, 1981 and from there the mental disorder of the respondent wife started. Father of the husband petitioner is also a physician and they consulted with local doctors and the doctors advised that the respondent wife would be cured, if she becomes a mother and thereafter their son was born in August, 1982. ( 30 ) EVIDENCE of P. W. 1 reveals that even after birth of their son in August, 1982 the mental disorder of the respondent was not improved. It is not a case that the appellant husband deserted the wife immediately after noticing signs of mental disorder of the wife. If we go through the documents produced by the husband appellant, it would be clear that he consulted with at least two eminent doctors of Calcutta, namely, Bijoy Ketu Bose and dr. Gobinda Sen for treatment of his wife. Ext.-1 is a prescription dated 9. 10. 83 issued by Dr. Bijoy Ketu Bose and Ext.-2 is a prescription dated 19. 1. 84 issued by Prof. Gobinda Sen. Prof. Gobinda Sen was Head of the Department of Psychiatry of Calcutta National medical College and Hospital. The several prescriptions of Gobinda Sen clearly reveals that respondent Ava Ghosh was under the treatment of Dr. Gobinda sen at least upto September, 1994. Later on the respondent was examined by dr. D. Singha, who was also a psychiatrist. Thereafter, the respondent was admitted into mental hospital at Mankundu and she was also admitted at Calcutta pavlov Hospital by the order of the learned SDJM, Ranaghat. Gobinda sen at least upto September, 1994. Later on the respondent was examined by dr. D. Singha, who was also a psychiatrist. Thereafter, the respondent was admitted into mental hospital at Mankundu and she was also admitted at Calcutta pavlov Hospital by the order of the learned SDJM, Ranaghat. In spite of treatment for almost 14 years when the husband found that the mental disease or the mental disorder of his wife has not been cured, and the wile was assaulting him, his parents, their son and was destroying household articles, the husband came to the decision that it was no more possible for him to live with the respondent as husband and wife, and thereafter, on 24. 7. 95 he filed the suit for divorce under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the H. M. Act. In the cross-examination of p. W. 1 we have not found any such vital defect or lacuna which can discredit, his evidence, or impair value of his evidence and in our opinion there is no ground to disbelieve the evidence of P. W. 1. ( 31 ) IN this connection evidence of P. W. 3, the son of the parties is very important and plays a vital role. The sons generally have a tendency of sympathy in favour of their mothers and sons are generally fond of mothers at least till they are married. In the instant case when P. W. 3 gave evidence in Court he was aged 18 years. Evidence of the son reveals that his mother was not a woman of sound mind and she used to assault his father, grand father and grand mother. His evidence also reveals that his mother often threw hot water towards them and sometimes dashed his grand mother on the burning oven of gas. He also stated that his mother often broke their household articles and sometimes threw away household articles outside and sometimes spoiled their dresses. Perusing his cross-examination also we find no ground to disbelieve his evidence. We do not like to discuss in length the evidence of P. W. 2, the mother-in-law of respondent but her evidence corroborates the story depicted by P. W. 1 and P. W. 3. ( 32 ) THE learned trial Court did not place reliance on the evidence of two doctors examined by the husband appellant, who were P. W. 4 and P. W. 5. ( 32 ) THE learned trial Court did not place reliance on the evidence of two doctors examined by the husband appellant, who were P. W. 4 and P. W. 5. it is true that P. W. 5 did not personally examine the respondent wife Ava Ghosh as a patient in Calcutta Pavlov Hospital, but he gave evidence after going through the bed head ticket and other history sheet of patient Ava Ghosh who was admitted under Dr. R. R. Ghosal P. W. 4 is a doctor of Bethampore who is still treating respondent wife at Bari Seva Niketan, a nursing home at Berhampore and P. W. 4 is also a medical practitioner and 3 psychiatrist. The cross-examination of P. W. 4 did not make out any case to show that the respondent was not suffering from mental disorder or any mental disease, and his cross-examination did not reveal anything to establish that his evidence is not reliable or trustworthy. ( 33 ) THE papers of Calcutta Pavlov Hospital and Mankundu Hospital reveals clearly that Ava Ghosh was treated for 'schizophrenia', which is a kind of mental disorder The learned trial Court placed reliance mainly on the observation of the District Judge dated 24. 1. 96 when the respondent and the appellant appeared before him and the District Judge in the order sheet mentioned that the respondent does not appear to be suffering from any mental disorder at present. Learned trial Court also disbelieved P. W. 5 as he did not personally examine the respondent wife. "schizophrenia" is a kind of mental disorder which apparently on plain eye or on one observation may not be detected, The District Judge when he saw the respondent wife found her to be normal but that observation was not on the basis of any experiment. If a patient of such nature is observed for few months, then only, it can be detected whether the said patient is suffering from any mental disorder or not or suffering from 'schizophrenia' or not. ( 34 ) EXHIBIT-1 to Exhibit-C (1) do not prove that respondent was fully cured and was not suffering from mental disorder or 'schizophrenia'. Ext.-A is the letter of husband addressed to Superintendent of Pavlov Hospital disclosing his intention not to take back his wife to his house. ( 34 ) EXHIBIT-1 to Exhibit-C (1) do not prove that respondent was fully cured and was not suffering from mental disorder or 'schizophrenia'. Ext.-A is the letter of husband addressed to Superintendent of Pavlov Hospital disclosing his intention not to take back his wife to his house. Ext.-B is a letter written by the respondent to the Superintendent of pavlov Hospital requesting him to take steps for sending her home. Exts.-C and C1 are two note's in treatment sheet of the respondent dated 21. 12. 96 and 3. 1. 97 indicating that information be sent to the patient party as the patient is fit for discharge. The words 'patient is fit for discharge' and Ext.-H do not prove that respondent was cured Completely when evidence of P. W. 1, P. W, 2, P. W. 3 and p. W. 4 proves that respondent even thereafter was suffering from 'schizophrenia' and mental disorder. She did not appear in Court to give evidence to prove that she was normal and was not a patient of mental disorder. Learned trial Court was in error by placing much reliance on Exts.-B, C and C1. ( 35 ) IN this connection we think it profitable to go through two decisions which are important and the decision referred to by Mr. Karar for respondent so that we can have an idea relating to legal principles settled by the Supreme court and our Court concerning divorce under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the H. M. Act. In Smt. Rita Roy v. Sitesh Chandra Bhadra Roy, reported in AIR 1982 Cal 138 a Division Bench of this Court observed that, "then about Schizophrenia, which is a mental disorder. In the bench case of Pronab v. Krishna, reported in 1974 (78) CWN 448: AIR 1975 Cal 109 , it has been stated that each case of schizophrenia has to be considered on its own merits. Schizophrenia is an illness of slow insidious onset developing over years. There may be report of strange, odd inappropriate behaviour. There will be progressive deterioration in the level of performance at work and socially, school report, examination results and the employment record will provide objective and usually reliable indices of intellectual performance, its maintenance or decline, vide page 454 (of Cal WN): (at p. 113 of AIR) of the report. There may be report of strange, odd inappropriate behaviour. There will be progressive deterioration in the level of performance at work and socially, school report, examination results and the employment record will provide objective and usually reliable indices of intellectual performance, its maintenance or decline, vide page 454 (of Cal WN): (at p. 113 of AIR) of the report. The observations made by Handerson and gillespies (10th Edn.) at page 279 may also be referred to. " It was further observed by the Division Bench that, "according to the aforesaid Clause (iii), two elements are necessary to get a decree. The party concerned must be of unsound mind or intermittently suffering from 'schizophrenia' or mental disorder. At the same time that disease must be of such a kind and of such an extent that the other party cannot reasonably be expected to live with her. So only one element of that clause is insufficient to grant a decree. " ( 36 ) IN Ram Narain Gupta v. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta, reported in AIR 1988 SC 2260 the Supreme Court laid down the law relating to grant of decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the H. M. Act. In that decision it was observed by the Supreme Court that mere branding of spouse as 'schizophrenia' is not sufficient. The Supreme Court held that degree of mental disorder of the spouse must be proved to be such that petitioning spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. In this reported decision the appellant and respondent were married on 17. 6. 1979 at Jhansi. The husband brought the suit for dissolution of the marriage on 14. 7. 1983 on the allegation that the wife was a 'schizophrenia'. Under that background the Supreme Court laid down what should be the considerations before the Court to come to a finding relating to unsoundness of mind, mental disorder and 'schizophrenia'. ( 37 ) IN the said decision the Supreme Court held that. "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. The answer to the apparently simple and perhaps misleading question as to "who is normal?" runs inevitably into philosophical thickets of the concept of mental normalcy and as involved therein, of the 'mind' itself. If the mere existence of any degree of mental abnormality could justify dissolution of a marriage few marriages would, indeed, survive in law. The answer to the apparently simple and perhaps misleading question as to "who is normal?" runs inevitably into philosophical thickets of the concept of mental normalcy and as involved therein, of the 'mind' itself. These concepts of 'mind', 'mental - phenomena' etc. , are more known than understood and the theories of "mind" and 'mentation' do not indicate any internal consistency, let alone validity, of the basic ideas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'schizophrenia', it is true, is 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 manifestations, this illness produces a crude wrench from reality and brings about a lowering of the higher mental functions. ( 38 ) "schizophrenia" is described thus:- -"a severe mental disorder (or group of disorders) characterized by a disintegration of the process of thinking, of contact 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 loses energy and initiative. The main types of Schizophrenia are 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 ). " ( 39 ) THE Supreme Court further observed that, "some schizophrenic reactions, which we call psychoses, may be relatively mild and transient; others may not interfere too. seriously with many aspects of everyday living. . . . . . . . . Are the characteristic remissions and relapses expressions of endogenous processes, or are they responses to psychosocial variables, or both? Some patients recover, apparently completely, when such recovery occurs without treatment we speak of spontaneous remission. seriously with many aspects of everyday living. . . . . . . . . Are the characteristic remissions and relapses expressions of endogenous processes, or are they responses to psychosocial variables, or both? Some patients recover, apparently completely, when such recovery occurs without treatment we speak of spontaneous remission. The term need not imply an independent endegenous process; it is just as likely that the spontaneous remission is a response to non-deliberate but nonetheless favourable psychosocial stimuli other than specific therapeutic activity. . . . . . . " Thereafter, the Hon'ble Apex Court quoted the aforesaid observation of the Division Bench of our Court in Smt. Rita Roy v. Sitesh Chandra (supra) which we have already mentioned earlier. The Supreme Court found that in the said case there was no sufficient ground to show that the Wife was suffering from Schizophrenia and disallowed the appeal preferred by the husband. ( 40 ) IN the decision namely Sharda v. Dharmpal (supra) cited by Mr, Karar, the Supreme Court reiterated the same view and held that in order to obtain decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the H. M. Act degree and extent of mental disorder to justify the decree of divorce is incurable unsoundness of a mind of a kind that the other spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with him or her. A few strong instances indicating short temper and erratic behaviour may not amount to suffering continuously or intermittently of unsoundness of mind. ( 41 ) WE are not oblivious of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court. In the instant case, the wife did not appear in Court at the time of evidence nor her parents came before the trial Court for giving evidence. No relative or friend of the respondent wife was examined before the learned trial Court. After closure of, evidence of husband appellant, learned trial Court granted adjournment several times for Over two years to the respondent wife for giving evidence and for her appearance before the Court. But, the respondent wife did not appear before the Court and did not lead any evidence as a counter attack of evidence adduced by the husband. After closure of, evidence of husband appellant, learned trial Court granted adjournment several times for Over two years to the respondent wife for giving evidence and for her appearance before the Court. But, the respondent wife did not appear before the Court and did not lead any evidence as a counter attack of evidence adduced by the husband. We find that there was no contrary evidence from the side of the respondent wife to prove that she was not suffering from mental disorder or Schizophrenia or was not intermittently or continuously suffering from unsoundness of mind. This is not a case that within 3/4. years of solemnisation of marriage the husband instituted the suit for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the H. M. Act. Analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the husband before the trial Court we find that for almost 14 years he treated his wife for her recovery by producing her before different doctors including two landing and prominent doctors of calcutta namely, Bijoy Ketu Bose and dr. Gobinda Sen who are recognised as ominent doctors in the field of psychiatry. Besides that, the respondent wife was examined by another psychiatrist namely dr. D. Sinha and was also examined at two Government Mental Hospitals namely, Calcutta Pavlov Hospital and mankundu Mental Hospital where she was treated for Schizophrenia. ( 42 ) THE evidence of P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 clearly reveals that even after prolonged treatment for over 14 years, the condition of respondent was not improved and she often used to assault the appellant, parents of appellant, their only son and used to threw away household articles and used to damage and break household articles. Evidence of P. W. 3 reveals that the respondent even dashed paternal grandmother on the burning oven of gas. When evidence of husband was going on the respondent wife was under the treatment of doctor ali Hasan (P. W. 4) at Berhampore. We have already discussed about the different prescriptions and medical papers. The oral and documentary evidence clearly prove that the respondent wife was not cured and when the suit was filed or, even after that, she was suffering continuously or intermittently from unsoundness of mind. We have already discussed about the different prescriptions and medical papers. The oral and documentary evidence clearly prove that the respondent wife was not cured and when the suit was filed or, even after that, she was suffering continuously or intermittently from unsoundness of mind. The respondent after appearing before the trial Court could have lead evidence to brush aside or oust the evidence of the husband appellant, but in spite of taking several adjournments she did not appear. If she appeared, and the trial Court had any doubt, the trial Court, could have directed her examination by any other competent doctor but, the trial Court had no such scope as the wife did not appear. The respondent wife did not attend Court to give evidence and avoided cross-examination. The Inference can be drawn that the respondent avoided attendance in Court as her evidence would have exposed her mental condition. In Sharda v. Dharmpal (supra) the Supreme court indicated that the Court has power to direct respondent to undergo medical examination and such direction is not violative of right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. ( 43 ) IN order to obtain decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the h. M. Act two conditions are to be fulfilled. First, it must be established that the respondent has been incurably of unsound mind, and secondly, the respondent 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. The aforesaid discussion made by us considering the evidence and materials-on-record makes it clear that the appellant-petitioner was able to fulfil the above stated two conditions in order to obtain a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1 ) (iii) of the H. M. Act. From oral and documentary evidence the appellant-petitioner was able to prove mental disorder of respondent wife and was also able to prove that the respondent was suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonal be expected to live with the respondent any further as husband and wife. From oral and documentary evidence the appellant-petitioner was able to prove mental disorder of respondent wife and was also able to prove that the respondent was suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonal be expected to live with the respondent any further as husband and wife. As the respondent wife after closure of petitioner's evidence did not appear in the trial Court at all, the Court had no scope to examine whether she was at all fit to answer intelligibly to establish that she was not suffering from any mental disorder. In this appeal also respondent did not appear and her father who received the notice of appeal as her next friend also did not appear to show that the respondent was normal and was not suffering from any mental disorder continuously or intermittently. Therefore, there was mistake on the part of the learned trial court to appreciate the evidence and also mistake on legal principles. There was no ground for dismissing the suit and the husband petitioner in this case should have been granted decree for divorce. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court being not in accordance with law are hereby set aside. ( 44 ) IN the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The suit, i. e. application for divorce filed by the appellant-petitioner succeeds and is allowed. The appellant-petitioner do get a decree of divorce. The marriage between the appellant-petitioner and respondent wife solemnised on 27th January, 1980 stands dissolved from this day. We make no order as to costs. ( 45 ) DEPARTMENT is directed to send down lower Court record along with copy of this judgment and order of the learned trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action.