JUDGMENT : (Biren Vaishnav, J.) 1. This First Appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was the original plaintiff of Family Suit No. 1013 of 2012. The Family Suit was filed by the appellant-plaintiff – husband against the respondent- defendant wife to get a decree of divorce under the provisions of Sec.13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. The short facts leading to filing of the suit by the appellant was that the appellant and the respondent got married on 27.02.2009. That the appellant possesses a degree of M.D.in Medicine whereas the respondent – defendant is a doctor in Ayurveda. 2.1 The case of the appellant before the Family Court was that the respondent was suffering from mental illness like Schizophrenia prior to her marriage which was concealed by her parents. That she believed in Brahmakumaris and therefore had no interest in matrimonial life and therefore refused to enter into any conjugal relationship and that in the event the appellant – plaintiff enters into any conjugal relationship, she threatened to commit suicide. 2.2 Evidence was led by the parties before the Family Court and on the discussion of evidence raised by the plaintiff and as the defendant had not examined herself, the Trial Court by its order dismissed the suit of the appellant and refused to grant divorce. The appellant – plaintiff therefore is in appeal. 3. Mr.Hriday Buch, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would take us through the relevant portions of the judgement under challenge and submit that the finding of the Trial Court that the evidence of the appellant could not have been branded as being an improvisation or that it suffered from additions and material contradictions is contrary to the evidence on record. 3.1 Taking the Court through the evidence on record as discussed by the Trial Court, Mr.Buch, learned counsel, would submit that it was an admitted fact that the appellant did not know of the mental illness of the respondent and it was only when he came across a photocopy of the file of the medical records that he was made aware of the fact that the respondent – wife was suffering from Schizophrenia. 3.2 Mr.Buch, learned counsel, would take us through relevant pleadings i.e. the plaint before the Trial Court and the evidence of the appellant to submit that it was the specific case of the appellant before the Trial Court that he was not in a position to enjoy conjugal relationships with his wife as she professed to be from Brahmakumaris, that she threatened to commit suicide in case of any forced physical relationship, and therefore, there was evidence apparent on record that there was cruelty, and therefore, the Trial Court committed serious error in not granting the benefit of separation under Sec.13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3.3 Mr.Buch, learned counsel, would rely on the evidence of the doctors, who have been examined on record, namely, Dr.Lakshman Shankarlal Dutt, at Exh.46, Dr.Mahesh Chudgar at Exh.48 and Dr.Rajesh Maniyar at Exh.53, who have unequivocally certified that the respondent was undergoing treatment and medical papers indicated that the gravity of the disease was such that living together was not possible. He would submit that one bald statement in cross-examination which indicated that he had not made any attempts to call the wife back from her maternal home in 2011 was taken as out of context as the appellant not being ready and willing to perform his rights, and therefore, the Trial Court committed serious error when there was evidence on record to prove cruelty and the decree, therefore, ought to have been passed. 3.4 Mr.Buch, learned counsel, would further submit that in absence of any evidence led by the defendant denying what was on record, a mere case of cross-examination of doctors would not disprove the case of the appellant. 4. Mr.Alak Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – wife, would support the decree and order of the Trial Court. He too would extensively read the relevant portions of the judgement to submit that there was evidence on record and the Trial Court was right in holding that it was not trustworthy and believable for the witnesses to have deposed to suggest illness on the part of the wife. In fact, the Trial Court has found from the record that there was no evidence which could suggest that the appellant deserved a decree of divorce. In fact, the Trial Court in his submission rightly held that there was out right improvisation and addition and material contradictions in the evidence of the plaintiff. In fact, the Trial Court has found from the record that there was no evidence which could suggest that the appellant deserved a decree of divorce. In fact, the Trial Court in his submission rightly held that there was out right improvisation and addition and material contradictions in the evidence of the plaintiff. 4.1 Taking us through the cross-examination of the doctors examined, Mr.Pandya, learned counsel, would submit that through the cross-examination of these witnesses, it has come on record that the ailment of the wife was not proved, and therefore, a decree of divorce was rightly refused. 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and reading of the plaint filed before the Trial Court by the appellant, would indicate that it was the case of the appellant that at the time of the ritual of engagement when the family had got together, he noticed that the respondent was not alert enough to respond to the calls of her mother and when it was enquired from her mother, the mother brushed the question aside by replying to the appellant that the respondent was moody. Instances have been pleaded by the plaintiff which indicates that prior to the marriage, the respondent was unwilling to come to the marital home on occasions and when called for rituals. 5.1 Examination of the plaintiff – appellant, when perused in its entirety, indicates that he had made out a case to suggest that it was in fact the respondent who had gone away from the marital home on the ground that she was not willing to enter into any conjugal relationship with the appellant purportedly on the ground that she was a believer in Brahmakumaris. When the entire evidence of the appellant is read, it is found that the respondent would be reserved, would not want to interact with the family members and/or with the neighbours and guests. This trait/characteristic of the respondent has to be examined in light of the evidence of the three doctors which has been brought on record. 5.2 Dr.Lakshman Shankarlal Dutt has been examined at Exh.46. Perusal of the Examination-in-Chief of Dr.Dutt would indicate that the medicines that were prescribed to be consumed by the respondent were specifically drugs for the treatment of Schizophrenia. 5.2 Dr.Lakshman Shankarlal Dutt has been examined at Exh.46. Perusal of the Examination-in-Chief of Dr.Dutt would indicate that the medicines that were prescribed to be consumed by the respondent were specifically drugs for the treatment of Schizophrenia. At Exh.47 he had produced documents, 16 in number, which indicated list of medications prescribed, to which he confirmed were medications for Schizophrenia. In the cross-examination, though he had denied that he had any knowledge of the chemist within the hospital precinct which prescribed such medicine, no other contradictions have been brought on record through the cross-examination of this witness. 5.3 Dr.Mahesh Chudgar, has been examined at Exh.48. He in his evidence specifically stated that he had examined the respondent Hiralben Brahmbhatt on 03.12.2009 and he had found that she had been suffering from Schizophrenia. He had further testified that the records of the treatment were in his computer. In his deposition he has stated that she would have a feeling as if somebody was entering her body and that she felt lost. 5.4 Dr.Rajesh Maniyar examined at Exh.53 would also indicate that Hiralben had undergone treatment and the papers of such medical treatment were produced at Exh.54. The mother-in-law of the respondent has been examined, who also testified that the respondent had confided that she was not comfortable in the company of male. 6. Reading of the medical papers which are part of the evidence, would indicate that the medications that were prescribed as testified by the doctors were specifically for the treatment of Schizophrenia. The test papers also indicate that when the respondent was examined on 06.03.2010 by Dr.Rajesh Maniyar, there were remarks in the medical records which indicated that she would feel hearing of voices within her body, that there was smell of flesh in the body, she would indulge and be associated with sadness of mood, low interest and self harming behaviour. 7. When the evidence is read in its entirety, that of the doctors together with that of the respondent with that of the plaintiff – appellant, merely because of a single line in the cross-examination and particularly when the respondent – defendant had not examined herself to deny the claim of the appellant, the finding of the Trial Court that the affidavit of the appellant was an outright improvisation and addition and that there were material contradictions is plainly erroneous. 8. 8. The records and proceedings were before us. We have minutely examined the testimonies of the plaintiff/appellant, the doctors, the prescriptions and connected evidence which is on record, which indicates that the medical condition of the respondent was such compounded with the fact that she refused to enter into any physical relationship and admittedly being separated from the matrimonial home for over 12 years now, is itself a sufficient ground that the marriage should be held to be broken down and irrepairable, and therefore, in the facts of this case, there is no reason why the order and judgement of the Trial Court in rejecting the application for divorce can be accepted when it has been proved sufficiently through the evidence of the appellant and that of the medical examinations together with the conduct of the respondent that there was no reason why a decree of divorce could not have been granted particularly when the wife, respondent herein is no longer in a position to honour the commitment of conjugal relationship with the husband, the appellant herein. The only option open for this Court is to accept the application of the appellant under Sec.13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgement and order dated 14.12.2018 in Family Suit No. 1013 of 2012 passed by the Family Court at Ahmedabad is quashed and set aside. The appellant is held to be entitled to and is so granted a decree of divorce under Sec.13(1) of the Hindue Marriage Act, 1955. In the interest of justice, since both i.e. the appeallant and the respondent are doctors in their respective fields, and at the outset the appellant – husband has candidly expressed his willingness to give a reasonable sum of alimony to the respondent herein, we direct the appellant, in light of his application for divorce being accepted to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards permanent alimony to the respondent within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. R & P be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.