JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. This appeal under Section 39 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 has been filed by the husband-Swapan Kumar Saha-challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree dated 08/03/2011 passed by the District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Matrimonial Suit No. 46/2005, dismissing the suit filed by him against his wife-Kalpana Saha-under Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, praying for a decree of nullity of their marriage. 2. The brief facts are these. Appellant married the respondent on 15/01/2005 by registering their marriage under Special Marriage Act, 1954, at Kolkata and thereafter they started their married life in his house. But from the next day, appellant noticed abnormality in behaviour of respondent and saw her taking medicines prescribed by psychiatric. She spent a sleepless night. When the matter was brought to notice of her relatives, they avoided on flimsy grounds. But on 03/02/2005, she became violent and expressed her willingness to leave the matrimonial home. She became so violent that she had to be put under lock and key in a room. One psychiatrist was called for treatment and he prescribed some medicines for administration. She was also advised to be hospitalized by another psychiatrist to be put under observation but her relatives took her to Guwahati on 05/02/2005 admitting that she had been suffering from mental disorder much before the marriage. It was the case of the appellant that their marriage was not consummated and as such, he filed the suit in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), 8th Court, Alipore, for declaration that the marriage is a nullity. 3. Respondent contested the suit by filing written statement stating inter-alia that the marriage was consummated on the first night itself and thereafter the appellant used to sleep with her keeping his dog-Jimmy- in the bed under the mosquito net and as such she, out of fear, sometimes had to spend sleepless nights. Appellant demanded a sum of Rs.3 lacs and on the failure on her part to satisfy that demand, appellant sent her back home on false allegations. 4. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence. Appellant demanded a sum of Rs.3 lacs and on the failure on her part to satisfy that demand, appellant sent her back home on false allegations. 4. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence. The suit was transferred to the Court of District Judge, Kamrup, consequent to an order passed by the Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (C) No. 338/07 and the District Judge passed the impugned judgment and decree as aforesaid and hence this appeal. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusing the records, we are of the considered view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit. Although, appellant had contended that respondent was suffering from psychological disorder, Dr Satyabrat Kar (PW2) has not sufficiently corroborated that evidence. In his cross examination, he has admitted that earlier history of respondent was not mentioned in his prescription (Exhibit 3) and he has also not mentioned in the prescription that respondent was suffering from acute psychosis although he has stated on oath that his provisional diagnosis was acute psychosis. He has also admitted that appellant told him that respondent was examined by another psychiatrist, namely, Dr S.K.Mukherjee on 3/2/2005. However, the said doctor was not examined. 6. This court on an application filed by the appellant directed vide order dated 12/7/2017 for the examination of respondent by a Medical Board duly constituted for that purpose only and the said Board upon physical examination of the respondent on 14/07/2017 submitted its report dated 15/07/2017. The relevant portion of which reads as follows:- “She has no complaints. Earlier she used to have cough and disturbed sleep which resolved on returning to her parents’ home and after starting homeopathic treatment. At husband’s place two psychiatrists visited her but the treatment advised was not taken. No prescriptions are available. Her sleep, appetite, micturition, and bowels are normal at present. There is weight gain and her menstrual cycles are regular. She is a graduate and currently unemployed. She keeps house of busy in household activities and she enjoys that. Her mental state examination does not reveal any psychopathology at present. The psychomotor activity is normal, speech is relevant and coherent, mood is euthymic and affect is appropriate, there is no thought and perceptual disorders, cognitive functions are intact. She is a graduate and currently unemployed. She keeps house of busy in household activities and she enjoys that. Her mental state examination does not reveal any psychopathology at present. The psychomotor activity is normal, speech is relevant and coherent, mood is euthymic and affect is appropriate, there is no thought and perceptual disorders, cognitive functions are intact. Based on the history and mental state examination mentioned above it is not possible to comment on her earlier suffering from mental disorder but currently there is no symptoms suggestive of mental disorder.” 7. On careful reading of the report of the Medical Board, it is clear that currently she has not been suffering from any psychological disorder. There is no history to that effect either. Only appellant has stated that she suffered from mental disorder for which she was examined by two psychiatrists. But the same is also not supported by cogent evidence. We do not find any ground to disbelieve the evidence of respondent that she had to suffer sleepless night out of fear and un-comfort as appellant used to take his dog to the bed while sleeping with her. On the contrary, there is no material sufficient enough to establish the plea of the appellant that respondent was suffering from mental disorder. Although respondent pleaded that the marriage was consummated in the first night, but in her cross examination she categorically denied having physical relation with her husband during her stay in the matrimonial home. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to defer from the District Judge and to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.