JUDGMENT : G.R. Swaminathan, J. The appellant Thiru.Mahalingam got married to the respondent Mrs.Hemamalini on 30.08.2001 at Thanjavur as per Hindu Rites and customs. A girl child was born through the said wedlock on 06.09.2002. According to the appellant, the respondent herein exhibited a strange behaviour right from the inception. The respondent appeared to be suffering from a severe mental illness. Therefore, the respondent was taken to a Psychiatrist by name, Dr.J.Venkatesan. The respondent was given medication. But there was no change in the mental state of the respondent. Therefore, the respondent was taken to NIMHANS, a renowned institution at Bangalore. It was then discovered that the respondent is suffering from "Schizophrenia" and that it is incurable. The appellant realized that the respondent was having such a condition from the beginning and that by suppressing the same, she was given in marriage to him. On 13.09.2005, at about 10.30 p.m., the respondent became very aggressive and severely assaulted the appellant. Left with no other option, the appellant took the respondent and the child to her parents' house and left them there. Since the respondent is having an incurable mental disorder and continued cohabitation with her would cause danger to the life and limb of the appellant, he filed H.M.O.P.No.108 of 2005 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. He also filed G.O.P.No.124 of 2005, seeking custody of the minor child. The respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.171 of 2007 before the very same Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights. 2. All the three petitions were tried together. The appellant examined himself as P.W.1. His mother was examined as P.W.2. Dr.J.Venkatesan, Psychiatrist, who treated the respondent was examined as P.W.4. Exhibits P.1 to P.12 were marked. On the side of the respondent, the respondent examined herself and her mother as R.W.1 and R.W.2. Exhibits R.1 to R.7 were marked on the side of the respondent. 3. The learned trial Judge by a common order dated 27.04.2010, dismissed the petitions filed by the appellant herein and allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein filed C.M.A.Nos.19 and 20 of 2010 before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge (P.C.R.), Thanjavur. The first appellate Court dismissed both the appeals by order dated 11.03.2011. Challenging the same, these two appeals have been filed. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein filed C.M.A.Nos.19 and 20 of 2010 before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge (P.C.R.), Thanjavur. The first appellate Court dismissed both the appeals by order dated 11.03.2011. Challenging the same, these two appeals have been filed. 4. These appeals were admitted as the following substantial question of law arose for consideration:- "While determining the mental stability of a person, is it necessary that the Court should in all cases take the opinion of a Medical Board appointed by the Court or whether it is sufficient, if the Court relies on the medical opinion given by the doctors on the side of the wife and husband." 5. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the marriage took place as early as in the year 2001 and that the parties have been living apart for more than 13 years. The relationship between them had suffered an irretrievable break down. It cannot be in dispute that the respondent is suffering from a mental disorder and that has led to this long period of continuous separation. He therefore pressed into service, the principle laid down by the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (Samar Ghosh V. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 ), which reads as follows:- "(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty." 7. The learned Senior counsel took me through the deposition of the Psychiatrist P.W.4. He also laid stress on the fact that the opinion of the Psychiatrist had to carry greater weight, in view of Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.12. According to him, the substantial question of law raised in these appeals should be answered in favour of the appellant. It would be sufficient for this Court to rely on the medical opinion given by P.W.4. 8. According to him, the substantial question of law raised in these appeals should be answered in favour of the appellant. It would be sufficient for this Court to rely on the medical opinion given by P.W.4. 8. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant that these appeals should be allowed. There is impediment for the appellant. It is a Himalayan barrier. As already pointed out, the appellant filed two petitions. One for divorce and another for custody of his minor child. The respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. All these three petitions were tried together. They were disposed of by a common order. While H.M.O.P.No.108 of 2005 and G.O.P.No.124 of 2005 filed by the husband were dismissed, H.M.O.P.No.171 of 2007 filed by the respondent was allowed by the learned trial Judge. But the appellant filed only two Civil Miscellaneous appeals. He questioned the orders made in H.M.O.P.No.108 of 2005 and H.M.O.P.No.171 of 2007. He did not file any appeal questioning the dismissal of G.O.P.No.124 of 2005. Now the question is whether the findings rendered in G.O.P.No.124 of 2005 would operate as res judicata. The issue is no longer res integra. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple and another V. Meenakshi Ammal and Others, (2015) 1 LW 1), has held that in the instance of the suits in which common issues have been framed and a common trial has been conducted, the losing party must file appeals in respect of all the adverse decrees. The decree not assailed thereupon metamorphoses into the character of a "former suit". 9. In the present case, the appellant sought the custody of his minor child on the ground that since the respondent is suffering from mental disorder, she would not be able to bring up the child properly. It is not in dispute that all the three cases were tried together and a common trial was conducted. A common order was rendered. Since the appellant admittedly did not file any appeal questioning the dismissal of G.O.P.No.124 of 2005, the same would operate as res judicata. It is not in dispute that all the three cases were tried together and a common trial was conducted. A common order was rendered. Since the appellant admittedly did not file any appeal questioning the dismissal of G.O.P.No.124 of 2005, the same would operate as res judicata. In view of the failure on the part of the appellant to specifically challenge the order made in G.O.P.No.124 of 2005, the present appeals are squarely hit by the doctrine of res judicata and have to be dismissed as such. 10. Even on merits, this Court has to hold that the appellant herein has not made out a case for divorce. It is not enough if the appellant can show that the respondent is suffering from "Schizophrenia". Something more is required. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the case on hand is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (Kollam Chandra Sekhar V. Kollam Padma Latha, (2013) 5 CTC 665). Paragraph No.18 of the said decision reads as under:- '18. The legal question that arises for our consideration is whether the marriage between the parties can be dissolved by granting a Decree of Divorce on the basis of one spouse's mental illness which includes Schizophrenia under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act. In the English case of Whysall V. Whysall, (1959) 3 AllER 389, it was held that a spouse is 'incurably of unsound mind' if he or she is of such mental incapacity as to make normal married life impossible and there is no prospect of any improvement in mental health, which would make this possible in future. The High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, in Pramatha Kumar Maity V. Ashima Maity, (1991) AIR Calcutta 123, has held that mental disorder of the Wife, even if proved, cannot, by itself, warrant a Decree of Divorce and it must be further proved that it is of such a nature as the Husband could not be expected to live with the Wife. The Allahabad High Court, in Mt.Tilti V. Alfred Rebert Jones, (1934) AIR Allahabad 273, has held that where it has come on record that the Wife has improved her educational qualifications and has been looking after her children, the apprehension of the Husband that there is danger to his life or to his children is not borne out is the finding recorded in the said case. Inability to manage his or her affairs is an essential attribute of an 'incurably unsound mind'. The facts pleaded and the evidence placed on record produced by the Appellant in this case does not establish such inability as a ground on which dissolution of marriage was sought for by him before the Trial Court.? 11. In the present case, the appellant had a normal conjugal life with the respondent leading to birth of a girl child. The respondent has filed a typed set of papers enclosing her credentials. The respondent qualified for the degree of B.A., having passed in the examination in April 2000. St.Luke's Matriculation School, Thanjavur has issued Service Certificate dated 03.04.2007, describing the respondent as having an excellent attitude towards teaching and that she has engaged actively in the teaching programme of the school. Rev. Dr.C.Ravi, Correspondent of the said school was examined as R.W.3. Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University has issued a certificate as late as on 19.01.2011 that the respondent has qualified for the degree of B.Ed., having passed in the examination held in December 2010. 12. A reading of the pleadings does not indicate that the respondent was aggressive or suffering from any psychotic illness so as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the appellant that cohabitation with the respondent would cause danger to his life and limb. It is true that the appellant has referred to a violent quarrel said to have taken place on 13.09.2005. But in the cross examination, the appellant had admitted that he did not suffer any external injury. 13. There is one more aspect that is to be noted. The learned trial Judge has given a finding that she observed that the respondent is able to give answers properly to all the questions put by the appellant's counsel during the cross examination. Nowhere she hesitated to answer nor she gave answer with any abnormalities. She deposed as an ordinary person and she appeared to be a woman of normal sense. Nowhere she hesitated to answer nor she gave answer with any abnormalities. She deposed as an ordinary person and she appeared to be a woman of normal sense. The learned trial Judge had the advantage of observing the respondent at close quarters. This finding given by the learned trial Judge based on her personal observations carries great weight with this Court. This Court cannot also accede to the submission of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant that in view of the irretrievable break down of the marriage, mental cruelty should be inferred and that therefore, the marriage should be dissolved. The legislature is yet to introduce "irretrievable break down of the marriage" as a ground for divorce. Even otherwise in the present case, the break down is only from the side of the appellant. The respondent has consistently maintained that she wants to live with the appellant. In the present case, a girl child has been born through the wedlock. Therefore, considering her interests and her future, the respondent is not willing to dissolve the relationship. This Court can very well appreciate the perspective of the respondent. 14. Now coming to the substantial question of law framed while admitting these second appeals, I hold that it is not necessary that the Court should in all cases take the opinion of a Medical Board appointed by the Court. Matrimonial litigation is also one more form of adversarial litigation. Evidence is adduced on either side. The Court will have to take the final call. Of course if the evidence is not forthcoming or if the interest of justice require, it is always open to the Court to appoint a Medical Board for subjecting the party concerned to an examination. If the party summoned to appear before the Medical Board does not appear, adverse inference can always be taken. Otherwise it is sufficient, if the Court relies on the opinion given by the Doctors examined on either side. Even the opinion of the Medical Board though not tainted by any partisan character, nevertheless cannot be binding on the Court. Be that as it may, in the present case, the outcome of these appeals does not depend on the aforesaid answer to the substantial question of law. Even the opinion of the Medical Board though not tainted by any partisan character, nevertheless cannot be binding on the Court. Be that as it may, in the present case, the outcome of these appeals does not depend on the aforesaid answer to the substantial question of law. As already pointed out, the appeals in any event will have to suffer dismissal in view of the failure on the part of the appellant to file an appeal questioning the dismissal of G.O.P.No.124 of 2005. 15. The Civil Miscellaneous Second appeals stand dismissed, accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.