JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the aggrieved husband against the dismissal of the Title Matrimonial Suit No. 5 of 2009 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, vide impugned judgment dated 25.05.2015, decree dated 29.05.2015 by which the suit for dissolution of marriage with the respondent filed under section 13(1)(i-a)&(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 12th July, 2000 as per Hindu rites. Two children have been born out of the wedlock, one being a daughter aged about seven years and a son aged about five years at the time of institution of the suit. The petitioner had pleaded before the learned court that he had seen abnormal behavior in the respondent as she used to become aggressive and tried to destroy household articles and misbehaved with him. She fled away from the house several times and she was brought back after searching her. She also sometimes went to her parent’s house. He got her treated at Dr. Davis Institute of Neuro Psychiatry under Dr. Borde. A prominent psychiatrist Dr. A.K. Gupta certified that she is suffering from “Schizophrenia”. In such circumstances, since the petitioner could not live peacefully with her, he preferred a Matrimonial Suit before the District Judge, Bokaro being T(M) S. No. 89 of 2001 which, however, was compromised and withdrawn on 12.02.2002. Her behaviour, however, remained unchanged. After few months, her behaviour again became reckless and cruel to the petitioner. Thereafter, he separated from his family members and started living with the respondent. A son was born in the year 2003 but contrary to the expectations, her misbehaviour and maltreatment with the children and petitioner as well as neighbors continued. She used to throw stones in the neighbors’ houses occasionally. On one occasion, she threw brick in the house of one Madan Gupta which broke the asbestos sheets of said Madan Gupta and he became injured. It was not possible to live with her. There fore the suit. 3. As per the respondent, the present petition is barred by resjudicata in view of the withdrawal of the earlier suit. She is a perfectly normal individual and does not suffer from any mental illness. She has been badly treated by the petitioner on trivial matters and even assaulted. The accusation of madness is false. There fore the suit. 3. As per the respondent, the present petition is barred by resjudicata in view of the withdrawal of the earlier suit. She is a perfectly normal individual and does not suffer from any mental illness. She has been badly treated by the petitioner on trivial matters and even assaulted. The accusation of madness is false. She has been driven out of her matrimonial home and is living at her sister’s house. She has denied having been treated at Dr. Davis Institute of Neuro Psychiatry or being examined by Dr. A.K. Gupta. Therefore the suit should be dismissed. 4. Following six issues were framed by learned trial court, as under:- “(i). Whether the petition as framed and filed is maintainable? (ii). Whether there is cause of action for this petition? (iii). Whether the petition is barred by principle of res-judicata? (iv). Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty after their marriage? (v). Whether the respondent is a lady of unsound mind or has been suffering intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with a respondent ? (vi). Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for by him?” 5. Petitioner examined five witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Ramu Digar, P.W. 2 Manoj Kumar Pandey, P.W. 3 Munna Kumar Burnwal, P.W. 4 Naveen Kumar Gupta (petitioner) and P.W. 5 Rishika Kumari Gupta (daughter of the petitioner) but no documentary evidence was adduced on his behalf. 6. Respondent adduced two witnesses, namely R.W. 1 Maya Devi (respondent) and R.W. 2 Gayatri Devi and also certificate of Maya Devi issued from RINPAS being Letter No. C-1467 dated 24th September, 2013 (Marked ’Y’ for identification). 7. The learned family court decided the contentious issue nos. 4 and 5 together against the petitioner. Though, the petitioner had adduced five witnesses including himself and their daughter P.W. 5 but, no chit of paper to support the allegation of mental disorder or “Schizophrenia” was adduced on his behalf. On the contrary, the respondent had adduced a certificate of RINPAS (marked ‘Y’ for identification), as per which the Board of Directors had certified that the respondent is not suffering from any mental disorder. Even the daughter of the petitioner had not whispered about any mental disorder of her mother. On the contrary, the respondent had adduced a certificate of RINPAS (marked ‘Y’ for identification), as per which the Board of Directors had certified that the respondent is not suffering from any mental disorder. Even the daughter of the petitioner had not whispered about any mental disorder of her mother. P.W. 1,2, and 3 had supported the case of the petitioner in a parrot like manner but not adduced any documentary evidence. P.W. 3 in his cross- examination has at para 15 admitted that the respondent had filed a case of assault against the petitioner. In fact, a case under Dowry Prohibition Act was filed, as stated by the respondent-wife in her cross examination. However, petitioner had threatened to commit suicide if she proceeded with the case. The learned family court also found that the couple had been blessed with a daughter and a son who were 11 years and 9 years respectively at the time of their depositions. Learned family court, therefore, disbelieved the case of the petitioner on both counts. However, in answer to issue no. 3 relating to plea of res-judicata raised by the respondent, it came to the opinion that since the earlier divorce suit being T (M) S No. 89 of 2001 was withdrawn, it could not operate as a bar of res-judicata to the present suit. Based on these findings, the learned family court did not find any merit in the petition which was dismissed on contest. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us to the evidence of P.W. 5 the daughter and also the respondent-wife. According to him, the daughter has clearly stated about her misbehaviour with the father and that he also got hurt on account of her unruly behaviour. The case instituted by her under Dowry Prohibition Act also ended up in acquittal of the petitioner. In those circumstances, making a false accusation itself would constitute a case of cruelty. Petitioner, therefore, had no reason to seek divorce from the respondent-wife. He, however, has conceded that the allegations of mental disorder were not established by the petitioner-appellant by any cogent documentary evidence during trial. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has supported the impugned judgment. According to her, the false accusation of mental disorder hurled against the respondent-wife stood demolished in absence of any material evidence at all being brought on record during trial. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has supported the impugned judgment. According to her, the false accusation of mental disorder hurled against the respondent-wife stood demolished in absence of any material evidence at all being brought on record during trial. On the contrary, the evidence adduced by the wife being a certificate from RINPAS showed that she was not suffering from any mental disorder. In fact the husband had threatened to commit suicide as a result of which the case under Dowry Prohibition Act was not pressed by the respondent-wife, leading to his acquittal, fearing that the children would become orphan. Both the grounds raised by the petitioner have miserably failed in absence of any material evidence to seek divorce in the present suit. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. The respondent has always been ready to live with the appellant-husband. It is only the torture inflicted by him that has compelled her to leave the matrimonial home and live with her sister despite two children being born out of the wedlock. 10. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gone through the relevant materials evidence cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and also perused the impugned judgment. From the narrative above which deals with the pleadings of the parties and the evidences adduced during trial, it becomes clear that there was no evidence in support of the allegation of mental disorder and Schizophrenia against the respondent, though such an accusation is a serious one and should not have been easily made. That is why the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to press home the allegation relating to mental disorder during the appeal. On the plea of cruelty also, apart from stray statements of P.W. 5 which in itself could not conclusively establish the element of cruelty inflicted by the respondent, there is no such cogent evidence to prove the same. The statement of P.W. 5 has been taken in the year 2013 while the suit was instituted in the year 2009 itself; that means the girl was about 7-8 years old at the time of institution of the suit. As per the case of the parties, it is also evident that from sometime around 2009 when the suit was instituted, the parties were living separately. 11. As per the case of the parties, it is also evident that from sometime around 2009 when the suit was instituted, the parties were living separately. 11. Having analyzed the evidences on record, we are of the considered view that the plea of cruelty also does not stand established on the basis of materials on record. We therefore do not find any error in the impugned judgment which warrants interference in appeal. Accordingly the instant appeal stands dismissed. Decree accordingly.