JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - This appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 arising out of case No. 240/2003 (Anil Sharma v. Smt. Mamta Sharma) passed by the Judge, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur whereby the application filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 for dissolution of marriage has been rejected vide impugned judgment on the ground that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly particularly that the respondent is mentally ill and does not discharge the marital obligations. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Out of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the issues "whether the respondent-wife is suffering from mental disorder which is not curable even after taking continuous treatment and she is not expected to live with the appellant." The onus of proof was on the appellant. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence, dismissed the application holding that because of mal-treatment of the appellant and her compulsion, the respondent is living with her parents and there is no truth in the allegations levelled by the appellant against the respondent. Perusal of the record shows that the learned trial Judge has recorded in the course of impugned order that several times the respondent was mal-treated and beaten by the appellant and turned out from the house. Proved fact has also been recorded that she was forcibly shunted out from the home. It is also proved that to get rid of the respondent, the appellant and his family members pretended that they are going to participate in the marriage at Kanpur and she should also accompany them. On this pretext, they started journey on 03.02.1998 by rail for Kanpur and while the train reached at Agra Fort Railway Station, she was forcibly dropped at the Station. Under such compulsion she went to her parents. It exhibits the cruel and harassive attitude of the appellant that instead of providing shelter and treatment, her life has been made miserable to live. 4. During trial, at the instance of the appellant, the effort was made by the trial court to examine mental status of the respondent. She was referred to Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur. It exhibits the cruel and harassive attitude of the appellant that instead of providing shelter and treatment, her life has been made miserable to live. 4. During trial, at the instance of the appellant, the effort was made by the trial court to examine mental status of the respondent. She was referred to Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur. The Board of three Doctors, after examination, submitted report containing the opinion that "Preliminary mental status examination - No gross psychopathology could be elicited at present, however requires more observation. I.Q. testing by clinical psychologist." In medical examination nothing unusual was found. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that disease with which she is suffering is prior to the marriage. He has not led any evidence to prove this fact that the disease prior to the marriage. From the perusal of the judgment of the trial court it reveals that she is being regularly beaten and harassed by the appellant to get rid of her. In such an atmosphere where the respondent has been placed by the appellant, it can create such mental disorder. The appellant could not make out before the trial court that the respondent deliberately is not living with the husband, though decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of the conjugal rights has been passed by the trial court in favour of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant could not convince us to take a different view to that what has been taken by the trial Court in the course of impugned order, therefore, we find no case for interference. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for placing on record the judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court in case title Anil Sharma v. State of U.P., reported in 2007 (58) ACC 499 and a copy of which has been placed before the court. Placing on record the copies of the judgment is not within the purview of Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code. This provision can be invoked for leading additional evidence. The judgment sought to be placed on record has been pressed into service at the time of hearing of appeal. Placing on record the copies of the judgment is not within the purview of Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code. This provision can be invoked for leading additional evidence. The judgment sought to be placed on record has been pressed into service at the time of hearing of appeal. The court can take judicial notice of the judgment and is not required to be placed on record. We have perused this judgment delivered in a criminal case which is of no help to the appellant.The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******