JUDGMENT : GOUTAM BHADURI, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 23-12-2019 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar, in HMA No. 89-A/2019 whereby the application preferred by the appellant/husband for grant of decree of divorce was dismissed. 2. (A) The appellant/husband filed an application pleading, inter-alia, that he was married to the respondent/wife on 25-9-2009. During the course of their marital life, the couple were blessed with a girl child. The husband alleged that before the marriage the family members of the wife did not disclose the fact that from the childhood, the wife was having the insanity attack and was being treated by the Doctors. The husband further stated that during such attack, the wife used to loose her mental capacity to control herself and even used to cause injury to any one. He also stated that the lunatic attack used to be at times in the fortnight or even weekly. At the time of marriage, the wife was too composed and did not talk to any one. However, the husband was under the impression that she being the newly married, will take time to adjust herself in the new house. (B) The husband also stated that subsequently the behaviour of the wife towards the husband and his family members did not improve and was not normal. She used to clamp allegation on each member of the family. Having seen the abnormal behaviour of the wife, her father was called. He came and gave certain medicine. According to the husband, on a trivial dispute the wife went along with her father to Charoda. The husband also pleaded that it came to his notice that the wife was being treated by Dr. Pramod Gupta for her mental disorder and she went under shock treatment. Subsequently, the husband, who was in the service of Grasim Cement, was allotted residential accommodation at Grasim Vihar and thereafter he took his wife. Since the medicine was not available, again her behaviour aggravated. (C) Narrating the incident, the husband stated that frequently the wife used to change her clothes and open her hairs. The wife also used to throw the Bangles, mangalsutra, bindi, anklet, etc. and also used to ransack the household articles. The clothes kept in the almirah were also thrown. Since the medicine was not available, again her behaviour aggravated. (C) Narrating the incident, the husband stated that frequently the wife used to change her clothes and open her hairs. The wife also used to throw the Bangles, mangalsutra, bindi, anklet, etc. and also used to ransack the household articles. The clothes kept in the almirah were also thrown. He further stated that the behaviour of the wife was normal at some point and the husband when insisted she disclosed that she was treated by the Psychiatrist at Durg namely; Dr. Pramod Gupta and Dr. Manik Deb Sikdar. She was also treated at Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) and also underwent shock treatment. (D) Having known such fact, when the husband went to the parental home of the wife and enquired about the ailment from her parents, it was disclosed that she had suffered mental ailment, but she is completely cured. It was further stated that she was pursuing B.Ed. and during such time she used to stay at Charoda with her parents where she was being treated and in the meanwhile she gave birth to a girl child. Even after birth of the child, the behaviour of the wife did not improve. She never take care of the child by providing proper care and food and also never sent the daughter to school and also not allowed her to play with other children. She damaged the utensils, TV, Computer, Amplifier, fridge, etc. torn the marriage album and burnt the important documents e.g. ATM Card, PAN Card, Driving Licence, Voter ID, Marksheet, etc. (E) When there is no change in the behaviour of the wife, the husband went to her parental home where threat was extended to him that he would be inculpated in a false case for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The husband further stated that in the same house they used to stay apart and she refused to get her treated. Certain incidents have been narrated by the husband that the wife used to bang the doors of neighbours continuously and for no reasons used to abuse them. He also stated that the wife used to run outside the house, however, with great difficulty she was controlled. On 23-7-2015 she was taken forcibly to Supela (Bhilai) wherein she was being treated by Dr. Manik Deb Sikdar. He also stated that the wife used to run outside the house, however, with great difficulty she was controlled. On 23-7-2015 she was taken forcibly to Supela (Bhilai) wherein she was being treated by Dr. Manik Deb Sikdar. When it was came to the knowledge of the husband that the ailment of the wife was quite old and will not be cured, the husband preferred an application with a prayer that either the marriage be declared nullity or the marriage dated 25-9-2009 be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. 3. The respondent/wife disowned the complete incident and stated that the husband used to compare her with other women including her gesture, behaviour and physical appearance. The wife was forced to adopt a service and having resisted false allegations have been made. She further stated that she want to stay with the husband. According to her on the false grounds, the allegations have been levelled against her and hence the application filed by the husband deserves to be dismissed. 4. The learned Family Court framed the issues on the point of cruelty and illness of the wife and held it in negative and consequently dismissed the application preferred by the husband for grant of decree of divorce. Thus, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband would submit that cumulative facts would show that the wife was suffering with mental disorder to the extent the behaviour has caused cruelty. He went through the statements of husband M. Santosh (PW-1); domestic help Radhika (PW-2) and friend Brajesh Kumar (PW-3) to submit that the statements of the witnesses remain un-rebutted, therefore, the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty should have been granted. He would also submit that the medical prescription, which was confronted to the wife would show that no denial was made and perusal of the same would show that the wife was suffering with mental disorder to the highest extent and even she assaulted the husband by a steel scale at certain point of time. At that time the wife was in an enraged state of mind, which was supported by PW-3 Brajesh Kumar. Learned counsel would next submit that such act on the part of wife would amount to cruelty and the husband is entitled for decree of divorce on this ground. 6. At that time the wife was in an enraged state of mind, which was supported by PW-3 Brajesh Kumar. Learned counsel would next submit that such act on the part of wife would amount to cruelty and the husband is entitled for decree of divorce on this ground. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife, per contra, would submit that the statement of the wife would show that it has never been established that the wife is having the mental disorder. He would further submit that the Doctor was not examined in this case. Consequently, the degree of mental disorder as has been claimed has not been proved. He would next submit that mere mental disorder will not entitle the husband to claim for divorce. In support of his contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kollam Chandra Sekhar vs. Kollam Padma Latha, (2014) 1 SCC 225 . He went through the statement of witnesses to submit that the order of learned Family Court is well merited, which do not call for any interference. 7. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/husband and perused the record. 8. (A) The husband M. Santosh was examined as PW-1. He stated that at the time of marriage the mental illness of the wife was not disclosed to them and it was found after certain point of time. He further stated that in a regular interval she used to have lunatic attack and her behaviour was abnormal. He also stated that at the time when she was under attack she used to go outside the house without any clothes and used to bang the doors of neighbours. He stated that after the marriage she used to take different medicine. It is stated that when the enquiry was made, it was revealed that she was being treated by a Doctor at Bhilai namely; Dr. Pramod Gupta, who is a Psychiatrist, and the said attacks at times were at long intervals. He further stated that after 7-8 months of marriage when the wife was taken to the house, her behaviour abnormally changed, but since it was concealed by her parents she could not take the medicine in time, as a result she again got into attacks. He further stated that after 7-8 months of marriage when the wife was taken to the house, her behaviour abnormally changed, but since it was concealed by her parents she could not take the medicine in time, as a result she again got into attacks. (B) Narrating certain incident the husband stated that the wife used to throw away the Bangles, mangalsutra, bindi, anklet, etc. and even the clothes kept in the almirah were also thrown. He further stated that in the month of December, 2014 while she was in normal state she disclosed about her mental illness and also disclosed the names of Dr. Pramod Gupta and Dr. Manik Deb Sikdar and informed the husband about the shock treatment. Husband also stated that the ailment did not subsided, but it further aggravated with the period of time. She damaged TV, Computer, Amplifier, fridge, utensils etc. torn the marriage album and burnt the important documents e.g. ATM Card, PAN Card, Driving Licence, Voter ID, Marksheet, etc. She also ransacked the household articles. Husband stated that he was always under fear that the wife may cause physical injury to the child. Narrating further incident the husband stated that at one time while the child was being beaten mercilessly by the wife he tried to intervene and at that time, she attacked him with a steel scale on his head whereby he was severely injured. Domestic help Radhika (PW-2) had also seen the incident and called the security personnel and staff of the school and some how or other she was controlled. (C) Further the husband stated that the Aunt of the wife, who is staying at USA, informed him over phone about mental illness of the wife. He admitted the fact in the cross-examination that whenever she used to take medicine she remains normal but after taking medicine she used only to sleep. In the cross-examination, though specific date was asked with regard to destruction of ATM Card, PAN Card, Driving Licence, Marksheet, Marriage Album, etc. by the wife, in reply to that the husband stated it was of the year 2014. He also stated that he got admitted his wife for treatment in the month of July, 2015 at Bhilai. Husband further deposed that mental ailment of the wife was concealed by her parents and when he asked about the same, instead of cooperation they became aggressive. He also stated that he got admitted his wife for treatment in the month of July, 2015 at Bhilai. Husband further deposed that mental ailment of the wife was concealed by her parents and when he asked about the same, instead of cooperation they became aggressive. He further stated that she was admitted in the hospital for treatment in the year 2014 also and while she was being admitted for treatment and was taken from Rawan to Bhilai with the help of staff members and security personnel. 9. (A) Radhika (PW-2), domestic help, stated that she has seen that the wife in state of mental ailment. Without any rhyme or reason she used to abuse and when the husband used to console her he was being attacked by any means. At times, the wife used to go outside without any clothes and she could not take care of her child by providing proper food, clothes, etc. Wife also used to obstruct her daughter to go to school and to go out of the house. Radhika (PW-2) further states that at times the wife used to close all the doors and windows of the house and also used to sit in the room for hours together after switching off the lights & fans. Further narrating the incident, this witness stated that two years back, the wife attacked the husband by a steel scale whereby the husband sustained severe injury on his head and whopping bleeding had taken place. At that time, she went to the school and informed the Principal and other staff members and with their intervention, the wife could be controlled. (B) In the cross-examination, this witness stated that uptil the daughter Priya was with wife, she never used to send her to school. With regard to suggestion to assault the husband, she stated that the husband was attacked three years prior to recording of statement i.e. October, 2018. She stated that at times the wife used to sit in the house keeping her head down and volunteered that the wife used to bang the doors of neighbours. 10. (A) Another witness Brajesh Kumar (PW-3), who is the colleague of the husband, stated that at the time of marriage he tried to talk with the wife, but she did not answer and was sat quietly and by appearance she was shown to be physically and mentally tired. 10. (A) Another witness Brajesh Kumar (PW-3), who is the colleague of the husband, stated that at the time of marriage he tried to talk with the wife, but she did not answer and was sat quietly and by appearance she was shown to be physically and mentally tired. He further stated that subsequently it was disclosed by the husband that the wife used to get attacks. Narrating the further incident, this witness stated that he with his wife often used to go to the house of the appellant/husband. The behaviour of the respondent/wife was unnatural. All of a sudden she used to cry, throw the household goods and even did not have the sense how she is dressed. He further stated that the wife used to quarrel with the neighbours and used to bang the doors continuously and when the doors used to be opened, whatever the things in her hands she used to throw on them. This witness also stated that during such attack she used to beat her child severely and when it was being objected, she used to attack her husband. At times after receiving information, he went along with other employees who saw that the husband was attacked by her and was bloodstained. With great difficulty, the situation was put in control. He also stated that the wife used to damage the household articles e.g. TV, Computer, Amplifier, fridge, utensils etc. torn the marriage album; and burnt the important documents e.g. ATM Card, PAN Card, Driving Licence, Voter ID, Marksheet, etc. (B) In the cross-examination of this witness, those statements remained unrebutted. On the contrary, he stated that whenever he used to visit the house of the appellant with his wife he used to sit with the appellant and his wife used to sit with the respondent, but the respondent/wife did not use to talk. With regard to injury sustained by the husband, this witness affirms the fact that such injury was caused by the wife. 11. The respondent/wife M. Usha was examined as DW-1. In her statement she denied to have the mental disorder attack. She admitted the fact that when she became ill she was being treated by their known Doctor namely; Dr. Manik Deb Sikdar. In the cross-examination she was confronted with such medical prescriptions. They are marked as Ex.A/1, A/2 and A/3. 11. The respondent/wife M. Usha was examined as DW-1. In her statement she denied to have the mental disorder attack. She admitted the fact that when she became ill she was being treated by their known Doctor namely; Dr. Manik Deb Sikdar. In the cross-examination she was confronted with such medical prescriptions. They are marked as Ex.A/1, A/2 and A/3. Perusal of it would show that she was being treated by the same Doctor, which she named. Document Ex.A/2 shows that the wife was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and was admitted in the hospital in the month of July, 2015. When specific confrontation was made about paranoid schizophrenia she stated that it was wrongly attributed by the appellant. Rest of the suggestion which was given to the wife was denied except the fact she admitted that the domestic help Radhika was working in her house, who is examined as PW-2. 12. The father of the respondent/wife namely; N.V. Rao was examined as DW-2. He admitted the fact that the appellant/husband came from Grasim Vihar, Rawan to leave the respondent/wife at Bhilai in the year 2015. In respect of the suggestion, this witness stated that he is not in know of the fact that whether she was admitted in the hospital or not after she was taken to Bhilai. Likewise, he denied the knowledge that his daughter was admitted in the hospital from 7-3-2015 to 24-7-2015 at Arogya Manochikitsak and Nasha Unmulan Centre. Ex.A/1 and A/2 are the medical prescriptions, which are in the letterhead of Dr. Manik Deb Sikdar. The same are of the month of July, 2015. 13. It is very strange to note that N.V. Rao (DW-2), father of the respondent/wife, would not know as to when the daughter comes to her town and whether she was admitted in the hospital or not. Admittedly, it shows that the father avoids to answer the questions and rather it creates a doubt about the correctness of the statement. The incident of attack to the husband by a steel scale, which caused severe injury, is corroborated by the evidence of domestic help Radhika (PW-2) and friend Brajesh Kumar (PW-3), who came to his rescue. There is nothing in the cross-examination to negate such incident. When on a specific point the cross-examination has not elaborated to rebut the statement made, such statement would be deemed to be admissible in evidence. 14. There is nothing in the cross-examination to negate such incident. When on a specific point the cross-examination has not elaborated to rebut the statement made, such statement would be deemed to be admissible in evidence. 14. Further the evidence shows the abnormal behaviour of the wife, who used to create panic by damaging utensils, TV, Computer, Amplifier, fridge, etc. torn the marriage album; and burning of the important documents e.g. ATM Card, PAN Card, Driving Licence, Voter ID, Marksheet, etc. which is completely unnatural. 15. No doubt, Section 13 (1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 stipulates that burden of proving of existence of sufficient degree of unsoundness of mind is entirely on the appellant. The standard of proof in such case is very high. Depending on the social set up of the parties and surroundings in which the parties live, the allegations can also be established by preponderance of evidence. 16. Analysis of the evidence of husband (PW-1), domestic help Radhika (PW-2) and friend Brajesh Kumar (PW-3), person who came to rescue, along with disclosure of name of Doctor by wife (DW-1) and statement of father (DW-2) wherein he avoids and pleads ignorance would satisfy the Court that the allegations have not been recklessly made and it is on the basis of cumulative effect of evidence tendered, the degree of behaviour can be evaluated. 17. In order to find out the cruelty apart from a physical cruelty, mental cruelty has been defined by the Supreme Court in the case of Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 which are reproduced herein-below: 101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental cruelty'. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive. (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (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. 18. The document (Ex.A/2), which is a medical prescription of Dr. Manik Deb Sikdar has not been bypassed. Under the provisions of Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act, 1955 the mental disorder of the respondent spouse, even if proved, it cannot be a sole ground to grant decree of divorce, but it must further be proved that it is of a such nature as the appellant/husband cannot reasonably expected to live with the respondent. The series of averments of behaviour made by the appellant lead to show that there has been abnormal aggressive and serious irresponsible conduct done by the wife. Therefore, if the husband is called upon to stay with the wife, despite it clearly appears that he cannot live with the wife because of periodical mental illness, which is rash behaviour, order to stay by force would amount to mental cruelty. On certain photographs, which are placed on record, when a query was made to the wife that whether such photographs belong to her it was admitted to be that of wife. Perusal of such photographs reflects that it was an aggressive expression, not normal, which corroborates the statement given by the husband. 19. On certain photographs, which are placed on record, when a query was made to the wife that whether such photographs belong to her it was admitted to be that of wife. Perusal of such photographs reflects that it was an aggressive expression, not normal, which corroborates the statement given by the husband. 19. Applying the aforesaid analogy in the facts and evidence of this case, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned family Court requires interference. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 23-12-2019 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar, in HMA No. 89-A/2019 is set aside. The marriage solemnised between the parties on 25-9-2009 is dissolved by decree of divorce. 20. As far as grant of alimony is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband would submit that the husband is working in the school of Grasim Cement and getting salary of Rs. 40,000/- per month. He would also submit that the daughter Priya is with the appellant/husband. Considering the present inflation; circumstances and also to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, we deem it appropriate that Rs. 8,000/- per month to be paid by way of maintenance to the wife henceforth as a permanent alimony. Accordingly, the appellant/husband shall pay an amount of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Only) as monthly maintenance of the respondent/wife. The deduction shall be made from source and would be paid to the account of wife. 21. It is made clear that as and when the salary is reciprocally increased, subsequently the amount of maintenance shall also be increased proportionally to the percent and extent of increase in future salary. 22. A decree be drawn accordingly.