JUDGMENT Arindam Sinha, J. Appellant-husband is before us in appeal being aggrieved by judgment dated 5th November, 2022 of the family Court, dismissing the petition filed by him, for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. Ms. Jena, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant- husband. She submits, after the marriage the couple moved to Bengaluru and thereafter Visakhapatnam as her client's job took him to those places. Her client tendered in evidence exhibit P-1 series. They are prescriptions dated 9th December, 2017 and 17th August, 2019. The prescriptions were by the doctor, who is also professor of psychiatry in Andhra Medical College and Superintendent, Government Hospital for Mental Care. The duly tendered documents were good evidence to show that her client was keen for obtaining treatment of respondent-wife. She, however, left his society and therefore the petition under section 9 for getting them back together. The family Court failed to appreciate the facts and erred by dismissing the petition. Impugned judgment be set aside in appeal and decree for restitution of conjugal rights. 3. Mr. Acharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent-wife. He submits, there is no error in impugned judgment. The learned Judge appreciated demeanor of his client, who endured the cross-examination. The learned Judge correctly found that his client had answered the questions without displaying any abnormality. 4. He submits, uncontroverted evidence by his client through her affidavit evidence-in-chief is that there was cruelty meted out to her, justifying her leaving the matrimonial home. Hence, the Court below found that the husband had mischievously filed for restitution of conjugal rights and thereby the petition stood dismissed. 5. We have perused the lower Court record. The appeal papers disclose most of it. On query from Court we have not been shown or demonstrated that respondent-wife had filed written statement. 6. We reproduce below paragraph-8.4 of the judgment. '8.4 On perusal of pleading and evidence of petitioner/ husband, it comes to be known that he has categorically pleaded and adduced evidence that the respondent was suffered to such an extent of abnormality which required immediate treatment by the doctor and accordingly, he got her abnormality treated by the doctor by administering the prescribed drugs to the respondent. In order to corroborate her oral say, he has proved certain prescriptions marked as Ext.P.1 series. In order to corroborate her oral say, he has proved certain prescriptions marked as Ext.P.1 series. On perusal of the alleged prescriptions under Ext.P-1 series, it is seen that though the respondent was examined by one Psychiatrist, but such prescriptions are silent regarding the nature of disease allegedly suffered by the respondent by the time of her examination. Though the prescriptions dtd.17.8.2019 and 9.12.2017 does not reveal the fact of any nature of disease, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that as the said prescriptions were issued by a Psychiatric expert, it can be safely inferred that the respondent was suffering from schizophrenia as claimed by the petitioner. Admittedly, no doctor certificate is proved by the petitioner showing suffering of respondent from alleged schizophrenia disease. The petitioner has failed to prove any prescription of any Govt. Hospital.' (emphasis supplied) 7. In context of above reproduced paragraph from impugned judgment we made query regarding whether the doctor, who was consulted by appellant-husband in taking respondent-wife for treatment, was related to appellant-husband. The answer is in the negative. There is also no dispute that on 9th December, 2017 and thereafter on 17th August, 2019, respondent-wife was taken to the doctor and two prescriptions were written out. Thus they were duly exhibited. The prescriptions are on examination made with an intervening period of more than 1 and 1/2 years. In this time, according to respondent-wife by her evidence on affidavit, she with her brother had gone away from her matrimonial home and then again returned to the husband. Therefore, the allegation that she was taken to the doctor without her consent and without consent of her parents must be viewed accordingly. Furthermore, after marriage it is doubtful that for the husband seeking treatment of his wife by visiting a doctor, consent of the parents is required. 8. In the prescriptions the doctor noted several points of observation made in examining respondent-wife. Amongst others, noting is she was crying. There is no evidence, either oral or documentary, regarding composition of the medicines prescribed or the purpose. 9. Respondent-wife in her cross-examination said that her physical and mental torture started at Vizag in month of September, 2017, inter alia, when she started protesting illicit relationship of petitioner-husband with other women. Amongst others, noting is she was crying. There is no evidence, either oral or documentary, regarding composition of the medicines prescribed or the purpose. 9. Respondent-wife in her cross-examination said that her physical and mental torture started at Vizag in month of September, 2017, inter alia, when she started protesting illicit relationship of petitioner-husband with other women. There is no written statement available or shown to us on behalf of respondent-wife and there is no such allegation in her evidence on affidavit. She admitted that petitioner-husband got her treated on 9th December, 2017 by psychiatrist at Vizag. The Court below recorded observation that respondent-wife answered almost 80% of the questions crying. She did not appear abnormal. On query to Mr. Acharya as to what question or questions in cross-examination caused distress to respondent-wife for her to break down he submits, questions regarding her suffering mental illness. We reproduce below paragraphs- 14 to 19 from her deposition dated 15th October, 2022 in cross-examination. '14. The physical and mental torture was started at Vizag in the month of September, 2017. As the petitioner did not like me, he being inebriated used to assault me both mentally and physically. Furthermore, as I started protesting the illicit relationship of petitioner with other women, he used to assault me. The petitioner would lock me inside a room at Vizag. 15. I used to cook for my inlaws family members. 16. It is not a fact that, I was not doing any domestic work in my inlaws house as there was three domestic servants employed by petitioner. 17. On dtd. 9.12.2017 the petitioner got me treated by psychiatric at Vizag. 18. It is not a fact that as I used to throw away the medicines prescribed by Gynaecologist during my pregnancy, as per her recommendation, I was treated by a psychiatric at Vizag; and that the petitioner has been bearing all the expenditure towards such psychiatric treatment. 19. Due to mental tension given by petitioner, I was sustained bleeding injury and was hospitalized. Again says that I was sustained bleeding injury due to assault of my mother-in-law and sister-in-law. I did not file any medical certificate regarding my treatment for my bleeding injury.' (emphasis supplied) 10. Evidence Act, 1872 by section 45 provides for opinion of experts. 19. Due to mental tension given by petitioner, I was sustained bleeding injury and was hospitalized. Again says that I was sustained bleeding injury due to assault of my mother-in-law and sister-in-law. I did not file any medical certificate regarding my treatment for my bleeding injury.' (emphasis supplied) 10. Evidence Act, 1872 by section 45 provides for opinion of experts. The provision says, when the Court has to form an opinion upon a point, inter alia, of science, the opinions upon that point, of persons specially skilled in such science are relevant facts. Psychiatry is a science and a doctor and professor of psychiatry undoubtedly an expert. It appears from impugned judgment that the prescriptions duly tendered in evidence were not relied upon. Instead the Court below formed a different opinion altogether, as observed from demeanor of respondent-wife while answering questions in cross-examination. Appreciation of demeanor of a witness is in regard to Court's reliance on evidence given by the witness from the box. The demeanor cannot be relied upon to form opinion regarding mental health or a disorder, minor or major, of the witness. 11. Perusal of impugned judgment shows, the Court below was convinced that respondent-wife had good cause, on having suffered cruelty, to leave the husband. We have already noticed that her evidence in cross- examination was, trouble began on shifting to Vizag. We have also noticed that respondent-wife became pregnant and was pregnant when she was taken to the doctor (psychiatrist). Here we reproduce below paragraphs- 8.9 to 10 from impugned judgment. '8.9 However, on perusal of pleading and evidence of respondent/wife regarding reason of her withdrawal from the conjugal society of the both spouse, it comes to be known that she has categorically pleaded and adduced evidence that she had been tortured by the petitioner and his family members during her stay with their company; and that the petitioner in order to prove her as a schizophrenia patient get her treated forcibly by the Psychiatrist doctor without her consent and consent of her parents; and that apprehending danger to her life, she was compelled to reside in her parental house. 9. On perusal of pleading and evidence of petitioner, it comes to be known that he does not claim to have contacted with to the parent of respondent for her alleged schizophrenia treatment which ought to have been. 9. On perusal of pleading and evidence of petitioner, it comes to be known that he does not claim to have contacted with to the parent of respondent for her alleged schizophrenia treatment which ought to have been. It is quite unnatural on the part of the petitioner, being husband of respondent, after knowing the schizophrenia disease of respondent started getting her treated without consent of her parent. Judicial notice can be taken that in the event of administration of anti-psychiatrist drug, the adverse impact on the brain of patient cannot be ruled out. It appears to be quite illogical to get the schizophrenia of the respondent treated without informing her parents. Rather, it is constant say and evidence of respondent that she has suffered mental imbalance due to both physical and mentally cruelty of the petitioner regarding each and every silly matter and behaviour of the respondent. 10. The respondent has strongly been contesting the proceeding that she does not want to restitute their conjugal life until disappearance of apprehension of danger to her life.' (emphasis supplied) 12. It is clear to us the Court below failed to appreciate that the husband was not making an allegation of mental disorder for purpose of separation. He tried to obtain treatment and on separation filed for reunion with his wife. As such, it cannot be said that not proving alleged schizophrenia disease on the person of respondent-wife by petitioner-husband leads to an inference that petitioner- husband might have evil intention to file present proceeding with present nature of prayer. No case was made out by respondent-wife that the prescribed medicines had caused her harm for the learned Judge to take judicial notice as said in impugned judgment. 13. For reasons aforesaid impugned judgment is set-aside in appeal. We are satisfied of the truth of the statements made by appellant-husband in his petition registered and numbered as C.P. no.173 of 2020 in the Court below. There is no legal ground why the petition should not be granted. We decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly. 14. The appeal is allowed and disposed of.