JUDGMENT : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ashish Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.12.2010 passed by Shri Lakshmi Kant Sharma, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in Matrimonial Case No. 04/2007 whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the petitioner/appellant has been dismissed and the maintenance amount has been modified to the extent of Rs.2500/- per month in favour of the respondent No. 1. 3. For the sake of convenience both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned court below. 4. The petitioner (appellant herein) had preferred a suit for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent No. 1 (respondent No. 1 herein) in which the respondent No. 2 (respondent No. 2 herein) has also been made a party under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in which inter alia it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent No. 1 on 18.5.03 as per Hindu Rites & Customs and after marriage they started living together at village-Ramna where the respondent No. 1 had given birth to a male child who is now 2 and 1/2 years old. The marriage was performed as per the assurance of the respondent No. 2 who is the father of the respondent No. 1. After marriage, the petitioner came to know about the unsoundness of mind of respondent No. 1 and the petitioner and his family members apprehended threat to their lives on account of the abnormal and aggressive behaviour of the respondent No. 1. The petitioner had got the respondent No. 1 treated by a Psychiatrist. It has been stated that after the birth of the child the mental health of the respondent No. 1 deteriorated and the petitioner who is a daily collection agent of Sahara India (a Non-Banking Company) was asked by the respondent No. 1 not to take collection from any female account holders. The petitioner was threatened by the respondent No. 1 that if he does not stop the collection of daily deposit amount from the female account holders firstly she will kill him and then commit suicide. The petitioner was threatened by the respondent No. 1 that if he does not stop the collection of daily deposit amount from the female account holders firstly she will kill him and then commit suicide. The petitioner had to take food from outside or spend the day in hunger as the respondent No. 1 had stopped giving food to the petitioner. The petitioner had taken the respondent No. 1 to Ranchi for her treatment and she was admitted in RINPAS Ranchi where she remained for one and half months and when the petitioner went to see her in the month of May, 2007 he was informed that the respondent No. 2 had got her discharged though the respondent No. 1 was not fully cured. On 17.06.2007, the petitioner along with his father and brother on the request of the respondent No. 2 had gone to village-Bhojpur to have a discussion on the further medical treatment which has to be given to the respondent No. 1 but they were brutally assaulted and the son of the petitioner was also forcibly kept by them. The respondent No. 1 has always treated the petitioner with cruelty and he apprehends threats to his life if he stays with the respondent No. 1. 5. On being noticed, both the respondents had appeared and filed their written statement in which it has been denied that the respondent No. 1 is of unsound mind. Her behavior towards the petitioner and his family members had always remained cordial. The respondent No. 1 has never been treated by a Psychiatrist and she has denied the allegations levelled by the petitioner that he was not given food and that he was prevented by the respondent No. 1 in making daily collections from female account holders. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication: (i) Is the suit maintainable as framed? (ii) Is the plaintiff/petitioner has got any cause of action? (iii) Is the defendant/respondent No. 1-woman of unsound mind and she was treated in RINPAS, Kanke, Ranchi? (iv) Was the plaintiff/petitioner ever met by cruelty in any manner by the defendant/ respondent No. 1? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief or reliefs as claimed? 7. The petitioner in support of his case has examined as many as nine witnesses. (iv) Was the plaintiff/petitioner ever met by cruelty in any manner by the defendant/ respondent No. 1? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief or reliefs as claimed? 7. The petitioner in support of his case has examined as many as nine witnesses. PW1-Dhananjay Kumar Gupta is the petitioner who has stated that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent No. 1 in the year 2003 and out of the said wedlock a son was born to them. The marriage had taken place on account of the assurance of the respondent No. 2 that the respondent No. 1 is an expert in domestic works, has a very affable nature and is a literate doing her graduation. It was also assured that the respondent No. 1 is mentally and physically sound. After a few days of marriage, it was noticed that the respondent No. 1 has mental issues as she used to behave abnormally and aggressively. She was taken to a doctor who had advised him to get the respondent No. 1 treated by a psychiatrist. In the meantime she had given birth to a child in the same mental state. After the birth of the child, the mental health of the respondent No. 1 deteriorated and he was subjected to torture by various means. The respondent No. 1 was averse to his collection of daily deposits from the female account holders which the petitioner objected by trying to convince her that daily collection of deposits is his only source of earning which resulted in the respondent No. 1 increasing the degree of cruelty and also stopping giving food to him. She used to threaten him as well as his son of doing away with their lives and she had herself attempted to commit suicide by jumping into the well and also trying to jump from the terrace. The respondent No. 1 also used to allege of his having an illicit relationship with other women. He got the respondent No. 1 admitted in RINPAS and when he went to see her in May, 2007 he came to know that the respondent No. 2 had forcibly got her discharged from the hospital in spite of the respondent No. 1 having not been fully cured of her illness. He got the respondent No. 1 admitted in RINPAS and when he went to see her in May, 2007 he came to know that the respondent No. 2 had forcibly got her discharged from the hospital in spite of the respondent No. 1 having not been fully cured of her illness. He has stated that on 17.6.07 when he had gone to meet the respondent No. 1 at village-Bhojpur along with his father and brother where they were subjected to assault and his son was forcibly kept by them. He has stated that it is not possible for him to stay with the respondent No. 1 due to her mental condition. In cross-examination, he has deposed that at the time of marriage he was unemployed and after marriage he had got a job in Sahara India. He had not made any complaints anywhere between 2003-2005 regarding her misbehavior. It is a fact that the respondent No. 1 had instituted a dowry related case before the court. He has deposed that sometimes the respondent No. 1 would run in a naked condition on the road, would try to jump from the terrace and had once jumped in the well. PW2-Ram Kishun Sao is the father of the petitioner whose evidence is similar to that of PW1. PW3-Vijay Kant Pathak PW5-Kewal Ram, PW6-Bodh Prasad Gupta, PW7-Om Prakash Gupta, PW8-Vishwajit Kumar and PW9-Ram Sagar Ram have more or less supported the case of the petitioner. PW4-Dr. Jayati Simlai Khess who was an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, RINPAS has stated that the respondent No. 1 was admitted in RINPAS on 14.03.2007 as she was having complaints of irrelevant talk, abusive, destructive behaviour trying to harm the child with reduced sleep, not eating or drinking properly. She also had Malaria for duration of two years but aggravated in past one and half months. She has stated that the respondent No. 1 had grandiose delusion, auxiliary, hallucination, poor judgment and grade one insight. The respondent No. 1 was discharged on 26.4.07 and was taken back by her father even though she was not fully settled. On 15.4.07, she beat a patient namely Asia Khatoon and had fracture her right arm. On 21.4.07 she had tried to break the glass of a car window, was aggressive, hyperactive and anxious to go home. The respondent No. 1 was discharged on 26.4.07 and was taken back by her father even though she was not fully settled. On 15.4.07, she beat a patient namely Asia Khatoon and had fracture her right arm. On 21.4.07 she had tried to break the glass of a car window, was aggressive, hyperactive and anxious to go home. The photocopy of the case record of the respondent No. 1 has been marked as Ext-2. In cross-examination she has deposed that on the date of discharge she was better than before. The illness is treatable and if she continues with regular treatment she will be manageable. She has deposed that Child delivery and Malaria are the cause of her illness. 8. The respondent has examined five witnesses on her behalf including the respondents themselves. DW1-Sunita Kumari Gupta is the respondent No. 1 and the wife of the petitioner who has stated that her marriage was solemnized after the family members of the petitioner had seen her. She was kept well in her matrimonial house for a few days and thereafter a demand was made of Rs.75,000/- which she was ordered to bring from her father and on non-fulfillment she was subjected to assault. When she became pregnant she was administered medicines without advice of the doctor. In January, 2005, she gave birth to a son who was named Sourav Kumar. In the year 2017, she was ousted from her matrimonial house by the petitioner and her inlaws after keeping her cloths, jewelleries and certificates with them. The petitioner wants to get a divorce from her by declaring her as mentally unsound. She has expressed her desire to stay with the petitioner. In cross-examination, she has deposed that her father used to give her tablets brought from Varanasi. The father of the petitioner had once taken her to the said medicine shop in Varanasi. She was initially treated at Varanasi and her inlaws had taken her for treatment to Kanke. Her father had given her medicines brought from Kanke for two and half years. She does not remember as to whether the petitioner and her father had gone to Kanke for admitting her in the hospital or not. It is not true that the marriage was solemnized by concealing the fact of her illness. Her father had given her medicines brought from Kanke for two and half years. She does not remember as to whether the petitioner and her father had gone to Kanke for admitting her in the hospital or not. It is not true that the marriage was solemnized by concealing the fact of her illness. DW2-Harish Chandra Prasad Gupta is the respondent No. 2 and father of respondent No. 1 who has stated that for two and half years his daughter was kept well in her matrimonial house though there were demands of dowry made from the side of the petitioner. The demand was not fulfilled and his daughter was collectively assaulted and ousted from her matrimonial house. He has denied that his daughter is suffering from mental illness. In cross-examinations he has denied that he had accompanied the petitioner for getting his daughter admitted in RINPAS. He had got the respondent No. 1 discharged from RINPAS. He has denied that the mental illness of his daughter was concealed at the time of marriage with the petitioner. He has also denied that his daughter was suffering from mental illness from prior to her marriage. DW3-Padum Kishore Gupta is the brother of respondent No. 1 and he has stated on similar terms to what has been stated by the other witnesses. Similar is the version of DW4-Pariksha Yadav and DW5-Satish Prasad Gupta. 9. It has been submitted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant that the assertion of the petitioner/appellant that the respondent No. 1 was suffering from mental illness has been proved by the petitioner by virtue of the evidence of PW4 and the case records of the respondent No. 1. It has been submitted that the respondent No. 1 is a woman of suspicious nature and she has suicidal tendencies which have caused immense mental cruelty upon the petitioner. Mr. Pandey has also submitted that though the respondents have alleged demand of dowry made from the side of the petitioner but the evidence of the respondents do not indicate that any criminal case was instituted against the petitioner and his family members which therefore falsifies such allegation. 10. Mr. Mr. Pandey has also submitted that though the respondents have alleged demand of dowry made from the side of the petitioner but the evidence of the respondents do not indicate that any criminal case was instituted against the petitioner and his family members which therefore falsifies such allegation. 10. Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the evidence of PW4 reveals that the mental illness suffered by the respondent No. 1 was not incurable in nature and on regular treatment the said disease is manageable. It has been stated that the petitioner had not made any conscious efforts to treat the respondent with care and compassion and only in order to get rid of the respondent No. 1, allegations of unsoundness of mind and cruelty have been levelled against the respondent No. 1. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the Lower Court Records. 12. Issue Nos. (iii) and (iv) are the issues of paramount importance which deals with cruelty and unsoundness of mind of the respondent No. 1 as alleged by the petitioner. The evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses are replete with allegations about the mental instability of the respondent No. 1 and various instances have been projected in support thereof. What would transpire from the allegations is that cruelty as alleged is interconnected with the mental unsoundness of the respondent No. 1 as all such acts seems as a consequence to her mental instability. So far as mental unsoundness is concerned, the evidence of PW4 assumes significance. She has though stated about the respondent No. 1 being admitted in RINPAS and has also highlighted her behaviorial tendencies which bordered on aggression but the reason for such behavior seems to have been diagnosed as relatable to Child birth and Malaria which she was suffering for two years. She has also opined that such disease is treatable. What would therefore transpire from the evidence of PW4 is that the illness suffered by the respondent No. 1 had developed after marriage and the same was not incurable in nature. 13. She has also opined that such disease is treatable. What would therefore transpire from the evidence of PW4 is that the illness suffered by the respondent No. 1 had developed after marriage and the same was not incurable in nature. 13. Explanation (a) to Section 13(1)(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 defines mental disorder and the illness suffered by the respondent No. 1 does not fall within any of the categories as such mental disorder as per PW4 is curable with medicines and was not an inherent factor of her personality as the same had developed after child birth and on account of her suffering from Malaria for two years. Issue No. (iii) so far as it relates to mental unsoundness of mind has not been proved by the petitioner and as a consequence thereof issue No. (iv) also remains unproved. The learned trial court has therefore rightly decided issue Nos. (iii) and (iv) in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. 14. On the basis of the discussions made hereinabove we do not find any reason to cause interference with the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2010 passed by Shri Lakshmi Kant Sharma, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in Matrimonial Case No. 04/2007 and we accordingly dismiss this appeal. 15. Pending I.As stand closed.