Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 847 (JHR)

Lal Babu Prasad Gupta v. Lilawati Devi

2017-05-10

H.C.MISHRA, S.N.PATHAK

body2017
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 22.01.2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Matrimonial Case No. 43 of 2010, whereby the matrimonial suit brought by the appellant-husband in the Court below for dissolution of marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of mental illness of the respondent-wife, has been dismissed by the Court below, on contest. 3. The impugned Judgment reveals that the marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs on 27.02.2009, at Surya Temple at Dev, in the District of Aurangabad, in the State of Bihar. Thereafter the parties were living together at their matrimonial home, when it was allegedly found by the appellant-husband that the respondent-wife was mentally ill. On the ground of mental illness, the marriage has been sought to be dissolved by the appellant-husband by filing matrimonial suit in the Court below. 4. Upon notice, the respondent has appeared and filed her written statement. Both the parties adduced evidence in the Court below in which the appellant-husband had examined four witnesses, including himself his father, his brother and one villager. All these witnesses have stated about the alleged mental illness of the respondent-wife. 5. The impugned Judgment, however, shows that no medical practitioner was examined by the appellant in the Court below, nor any medical document had been proved by the appellant to establish the mental illness of the respondent-wife. The Court below also found other lacunae in the plaint, which need not be discussed in detail. In view of the fact that the appellant could not prove the mental illness of the respondent-wife, the suit was dismissed by the Court-below on contest. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned Judgment and Decree are absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the appellant husband in the Court below, the appellant had been able to prove the mental illness of the respondent-wife, as all the witnesses had stated about it. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment and Decree. 8. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment and Decree. 8. Having heard the leaned Counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that it was the appellant who had to prove the mental illness of the respondent-wife in order to succeed in his suit. The appellant had not examined any medical practitioner to prove the mental illness of the respondent-wife, nor had adduced any document in support of his case. We are of the considered view that Court below has rightly dismissed the suit and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 22.01.2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Matrimonial Case No. 43 of 2010. 9. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.