JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of Matrimonial Suit No. 186 of 2005 seeking decree for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent vide judgment dated 19th December, 2012 rendered by the Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. Matrimonial Suit was instituted on 21st September, 2005 by the petitioner, inter alia, asserting as follows:-- 2. The appellant entered into nuptial knot with the respondent on 10th December, 1999, at Jamshedpur, as per Hindu rites and customs. A female child, namely, Deblina Sarkar, was born out of their wedlock on 16th September, 2001. Since inception of their marriage, the activities of the respondent-wife towards the family including his old father and elder brother were very much rude, aggressive and disrespectful. Respondent always tried to stay away with her own mother and brother at their place. Due to disrespectful behavior and mental torture towards the appellant, the old father of the appellant was forced to stay away and live separately and only elder brother, Debashis Sarkar had left for abroad in October, 2004. After the marriage, the appellant had noticed Psychopathic disorder and/or persistent disorder of the respondent for which she was taken for treatment till recent time. The appellant felt that there was very slim chances of her cure. According to appellant, he could not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent-wife. She left the matrimonial home on 29.4.2005 without the consent and permission of the husband and is living with only daughter Deblina with her own mother and brother. The appellant served a legal notice on 1.6.2005 to the respondent which remain unreplied. Due to disrespectful behavior and mental torture perpetrated by the respondent-wife, the appellant, had no option but to seek a decree for judicial separation against the respondent. By amendment dated 9.4.2008, several averments were incorporated in the plaint at paragraphs 7A to 7F and the appellant, was permitted to amend the prayer for seeking a decree of divorce against the respondent. 3. Respondent appeared on notice and filed her written statement stating that she was a legally married wife of the appellant and had a daughter out of their wedlock. It was further alleged that she was subjected to cruelty on several occasions and the appellant had been very harsh in many ways. 3. Respondent appeared on notice and filed her written statement stating that she was a legally married wife of the appellant and had a daughter out of their wedlock. It was further alleged that she was subjected to cruelty on several occasions and the appellant had been very harsh in many ways. A criminal case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code being G.R. Case No. 2446 of 2005 was instituted against him for the act of cruelty. Medical grounds asserted in para-6 of the petition have been denied as concoction. Plea of desertion has also been denied by the respondent. According to her, she was driven out mercilessly. The appellant left herself in the hospital and she was compelled to call her brother to take her to their home from the hospital and since then she is living separately. She, accordingly, opposed the prayer for divorce. 4. The learned Family Court framed the following issues:-- 1. Whether the case as framed and filed is maintainable in its present form or not? 2. Whether the application has valid cause of action for filing the case or not? 3. Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty after solemnization of the marriage or not? 4. Whether the applicant is entitled to get a decree of divorce against the respondent? 5. To what other relief or reliefs the applicant is entitled to? 5. The applicant-appellant examined four witnesses. P.W. 1 being the appellant himself; P.W. 2 Anil Kumar and P.W. 3 Mov Mitra who could not be cross-examined after submission of his examination-in-chief on affidavit and hence these statements were not considered by the learned Family Court. P.W. 4 is Dr. Prabhat Verma, who was specialist of Neuro Psychiatry in Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur. Respondent examined as R.W. 2 and one also as R.W. 1 Abhijit Biswas. Applicant/appellant herein adduced Ext.-1 legal notice, Ext. 3 series, i.e. Ext.-3 to 3/H being medical prescription and record of admission & discharge of the respondent from Tata Main Hospital. Ext.-2 is xerox copy of the Sulahanama. 6. P.W. 1 supported the case in the plaint during his deposition. According to him, respondent never cared for his sentiment nor accompanied for regular check up in the hospital nor took medicine on regular basis as prescribed by the Doctor. She also left her matrimonial home and stayed at her parental home. Ext.-2 is xerox copy of the Sulahanama. 6. P.W. 1 supported the case in the plaint during his deposition. According to him, respondent never cared for his sentiment nor accompanied for regular check up in the hospital nor took medicine on regular basis as prescribed by the Doctor. She also left her matrimonial home and stayed at her parental home. This act amounted to mental cruelty. Her aggressive and rude behavior had effected his marital life. She had last resided with the appellant on 29.4.2005 and never returned to her matrimonial home. She has been living with her mother and brother. He has further deposed about the symptom of Psychopathic disorder noticed in the respondent, as she was always filled with anger and tension. 7. P.W. 2, who is his friend, has also supported and corroborated the entire case of the applicant/appellant herein. According to him, there was no trust and love between the parties. Therefore, there was no chance of conciliation. He did not have knowledge about medicine given by the Doctor who treated her. 8. P.W. 3's evidence was not read as she did not appear for cross-examination. 9. As a matter of fact, the appellant had filed a petition on 28.9.2012 with a prayer for summoning Dr. Prabhat Verma, Senior Doctor, in Tata Main Hospital in the discipline of Neuro Psychiatry to prove the medical prescription of the respondent Papiya Sarkar and her admission from 27.8.2005 to 1.9.2005. It was stated therein that at the time of argument and after getting certified copy of the cross-examination of the parties, appellant-applicant found there was specific denial of respondent and her brother Abhijit Biswas with regard to psychopathic disorder, for which, she was being treated in Tata Main Hospital by Dr. Prabhat Verma. Respondent was admitted on 27.8.2005 in Tata Main Hospital and discharged on 1.9.2005. In view of denial by the respondent witness, the evidence of the Dr. Prabhat Verma, who treated her, was vital. It appears that thereafter, this P.W. 4 was admitted to examination, which took place on 24.11.2012. 10. The respondent herself had, on her past, supported the contention made in her written statement in totality and also stated about the torture and assault committed by the husband. She also deposed that the learned Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, convicted the appellant on 17.11.2009 in the said case. 10. The respondent herself had, on her past, supported the contention made in her written statement in totality and also stated about the torture and assault committed by the husband. She also deposed that the learned Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, convicted the appellant on 17.11.2009 in the said case. She was not patient of the mental disease and the Doctor, who treated her, had advised that it was dangerous for her to take psychiatric medicine. According to her, she was living separately from the month of September, 2005. She had denied that in the prescription written by the Doctor it is stated that her treatment of psychiatric disorder was going on from before her marriage, Her brother R.W. 1 Abhijit Biswas also supported the case set up in the written statement. He also denied about the knowledge of psychiatric treatment in. Tata Main Hospital or the Doctor who treated her. 11. In this light, evidence of P.W. 4 assuming significance. P.W. 4 in his examination-in-chief has stated that he was in extension of service. He was specialist in neuro-psychiatry. Ext.-3 is his prescription, which is in his own pen and signature, according to which, he examined Mrs. P. Sarkar, full name Papiya Sarkar. As per the prescription, she was suffering from schizophrenic form of psychosis. Patient has left the medicine for two to three days so she went into acute psychotic episode and was advised for admission in Tata Main Hospital in 6B ward and medicine. Exts. 3/a and 3/b are the same documents, This is the discharge slip of Tata Main Hospital of the patient of Papiya Sarkar. She was admitted on 27.8.2005 at 21.20 hours and was discharged on 1st September. 2005. She was treated by him. She was diagnosed with A.P.E. She was discharged after improvement with medication to attend psychiatry O.P.D. after one week and one medicine was advised. A.P.E. is the type of a symptom though it is a disease Doctor can level it as a disease after six months. The common symptom is abnormal behavior such as irrelevant talk suspiciousness, undue excitement or anger and decreased sleep. Patient needs to take medicines under Doctor's guidance and supervision. It is possible that the patient can harm oneself or others. 12. According to P.W. 4, respondent was examined on 27.8.2005 for the first time. The common symptom is abnormal behavior such as irrelevant talk suspiciousness, undue excitement or anger and decreased sleep. Patient needs to take medicines under Doctor's guidance and supervision. It is possible that the patient can harm oneself or others. 12. According to P.W. 4, respondent was examined on 27.8.2005 for the first time. As per the prescription, he did not remember whether he examined her earlier-or not. Ext.-3 is the xerox copy of the original. Before declaring a patient of P.A.E., examination of mental status is done, which is not mentioned in the prescription. According to Doctor, the patient on medication can be normal or will have residual symptom. It has also been seen that some patients, after taking treatment for sometimes, leave the medication on their own and remained normal for days, month or year till they get the second attack. Respondent was discharged after showing improvement. The symptom may not vary in male or female. The discharge report is also xerox copy. From perusal of the Ext.-3 to 3/H, it appears that she was admitted on 27.8.2005 to psychiatry 6B ward and had been admitted by Mohan Lall Kansa with the symptom of Acute Psy. Case. The prescription of 27.8.2005 has reflected that she was suffering from schizophrenic form of psychosis. 13. The learned trial court, however, disbelieved the material evidence and the case set up by the appellant and came to the finding That the wife had left her matrimonial home on account of torture, assault and abuse, perpetrated by her husband and in-laws. Appellant-applicant has also been convicted in the criminal case instituted by the wife. Therefore, allegation of cruelty was proved and the matrimonial suit was accordingly dismissed. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the material pleading of the matrimonial suit and the evidence adduced by the parties and has made the following submissions:-- (i) that the respondent was suffering from a mental disorder of the nature of schizophrenic form of psychosis which has been adequately pleaded and established during the course of trial. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the material pleading of the matrimonial suit and the evidence adduced by the parties and has made the following submissions:-- (i) that the respondent was suffering from a mental disorder of the nature of schizophrenic form of psychosis which has been adequately pleaded and established during the course of trial. The appellant is therefore entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage in view of the specific ground available under Section 13(1)(iii)(a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; (ii) that the respondent has left the matrimonial home without any provocation on his part since 29.4.2005 and is living separately more than 13 years by now; (iii) that on account of conviction in criminal case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code there is no chance of reconciliation also. He was however let out on probation by the appellate Court. (iv) that efforts for amicable settlement through mediation during pendency of the appeal had also been failed earlier. The marriage had irretrievably broken down. Therefore, no purpose would be served to keep the marriage alive. It would be in the interest of both the parties that the marriage be dissolved. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh", reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 and in the case of "Anil Kumar Jain vs. Maya Jain", reported in (2009) 10 SCC 415 . 16. The learned counsel for the respondent has, however, opposed the prayer for dissolution. He submits that plea of desertion has been clearly demolished on the basis of the material available on record before the Family Court. Conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code itself is sufficient evidence of cruelty in marriage on the part of the husband rather than the wife. If the charge of cruelty in marriage is established in the criminal trial, the respondent had a reasonable cause to leave the matrimonial home in such circumstances. Therefore, she cannot be accused of having deserted the appellant. Plea of mental disorder has been set up during the matrimonial suit though in the legal notice served earlier, there is no mention of any mental disorder of the respondent. Therefore, she cannot be accused of having deserted the appellant. Plea of mental disorder has been set up during the matrimonial suit though in the legal notice served earlier, there is no mention of any mental disorder of the respondent. Respondent still is willing to live with the appellant and not agreeable to sever the matrimonial tie. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any error of law or perversity. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 17. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the material evidence available on the lower court records and also perused the impugned judgment. 18. From the material pleadings and evidence on record as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, we find that there was a specific plea of serious mental disorder i.e. psychotic symptom raised by the appellant-applicant in the plaint itself. When the respondent denied the said assertion and also deposed that there was no such mental disorder from which she was suffering, the appellant sought permission of the learned Family Court to adduce the medical expert, Dr. Prabhat Verma, specialist of Neuro Psychiatry in Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur, who had treated her as an indoor patient, as witness. The evidence of Dr. Prabhat Verma read with the medical prescription and the admission and discharge records of the hospital clearly reveal that the respondent was suffering from severe mental disorder, which was termed as schizophrenic form of psychosis. As a matter of fact, P.W. 4 also opined that in such cases there are chance that the patient can harm oneself or others. 19. We may usefully reproduce Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which contains the grounds for seeking divorce on the part of the aggrieved spouse, hereunder:-- "13. Divorce.--(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party-- (i) .... (ia) .... (ib) ... (ii) ... Divorce.--(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party-- (i) .... (ia) .... (ib) ... (ii) ... (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." Explanation.---In this clause,-- "(a) the expression "mental disorder" means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia; (b) the expression "psychopathic disorder" means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub-normality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment;" 20. In the light of the medical evidence on record, in relation to the mental disorder of the respondent we are of the considered view that the appellant has been able to successfully establish his case for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent as she was found to be suffering from schizophrenic form of psychosis. Apart from that, we find that the parties have been living separately since 2005 till date and there are no chance of reconciliation. More so, for the reason that the appellant-applicant has already been convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of the respondent-wife. It is informed that the appellate court has upheld the conviction but released the appellant under probation in terms of the Probation of Offenders Act. Cumulatively taking all the factors into consideration we can reasonably assume that there are slim chance of the parties to reunite and live together. 21. We may rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226 : [2013 (1) JLJR (SC) 443] on the plea of irretrievable break down of marriage. The Apex Court in the said case had occasion to observe that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Apex Court in the said case had occasion to observe that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, where marriage is beyond repair on account of bitterness created by acts of either of the husband or the wife or of both, courts have always taken irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a very weighty circumstance amongst others necessitating severance of marital tie. Marriage which is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by court's verdict, if parties are not willing, since marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and if they have dried up, there is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by court decree. 22. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the considered view that marriage between the parties exists only as legal tie though all the sentiments and emotions between them have vanished. The appellant, has also been able to clearly establish the ground for mental disorder under Section 13(iii) of the Act of 1955 to seek dissolution of marriage. Accordingly, the marriage between the parties stands dissolved. Appellant is serving in TIMKEN Company at Jamshedpur. There is a daughter aged 17 years living with the respondent whom she has to maintain till she is major also to get her married. Considering in totality, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met, if the appellant is directed to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen lakhs) to the respondent and for maintenance of her daughter and her future marriage expenses. The appellant may pay the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- in lump sum or in three equal installment within a period of six months. In case, the amount is paid in installment, first installment would be payable by the first week of March, 2018; second installment by first week of May, 2018 and third installment by first week of July, 2018 to be deposited with the Family Court, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. 23. Respondent would be entitled to withdraw the said amount on proper application being made and proper identification having established before the learned Family Court. The learned Family Court would be free to lay down terms while releasing the amounts as to secure the interests of the minor daughter. 24. 23. Respondent would be entitled to withdraw the said amount on proper application being made and proper identification having established before the learned Family Court. The learned Family Court would be free to lay down terms while releasing the amounts as to secure the interests of the minor daughter. 24. The impugned judgment dated 19th December, 2012, rendered by the Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur is accordingly set aside. Accordingly, this First Appeal is allowed. Decree accordingly.