JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 28.03.2023 and the decree dated 05.04.2023 passed in Original Suit No.275 of 2017 by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Family Court-2, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur (in short, Family Judge) whereby and whereunder the petition filed under section 13(1) (i-a) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint having been recorded by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred herein as: (i) The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 18.04.2008 according to Hindu Rites and Custom. After the marriage the appellant-husband came to know that the respondent is mental patient of Schizophrenia for which her treatment was going on in Tata Motor Hospital and Ranchi Mental Hospital and the respondent is suffering from Schizophrenia. (ii) It is a disease of mental disorder characterized by abnormal social behaviour and failure to understand what is real. Common symptoms of this disease are confused thinking, hearing voices that other do not hear. (iii) It is alleged that the parents of respondent knew about mental disorder of the respondent but they did not say anything to petitioner at the time of marriage and, thus, the parents of respondent have cheated the petitioner and gave false information about their daughter at the time of marriage. (iv) It is alleged that the respondent tried to hang twice but did not succeed. The petitioner is permanent employee of M/s Tata Motors. He is always in fear that if his wife did anything wrong against herself, he will come in problem. (v) It is further alleged that a male child was born on 17.09.2009 out of their wedlock, but the respondent did not care for her son and she do not make food for petitioner and family members due to her mental disorder. (vi) It is alleged that the respondent was admitted in mental hospital and still her treatment is going on. The respondent does not want to live with parents of the petitioner and does not care for them and due to her mental disorder, the respondent is not able to do household work. (vi) It is alleged that the respondent was admitted in mental hospital and still her treatment is going on. The respondent does not want to live with parents of the petitioner and does not care for them and due to her mental disorder, the respondent is not able to do household work. (vii) It is alleged that the respondent throw utensils on the petitioner and his family members, and some time family members got injured and respondent also breaks utensils. 3. On the aforesaid ground of cruelty and mental disorder, the appellant-husband has prayed for a decree of dissolution of the marriage between him and the respondent-wife. 4. It needs to mention herein that in Original Suit No.275 of 2017, upon issuance of the notices, the respondent-wife has appeared and filed a written statement denying all the allegations levelled against her by the appellant-husband. She has stated in her written statement that before solemnization of marriage the petitioner, his parents and in-laws made inquiry and met with her several times and after being fully satisfied about her, the petitioner gave his consent to the marriage with the respondent. 5. It is alleged in the written statement that for the shake of demand for dowry the petitioner and her in-laws started torturing the respondent physically and mentally but she any how tolerated and managed the things to lead a happy conjugal life. It is stated that out of the wedlock with the petitioner one male child was born on 17.09.2009. 6. It is alleged that it is the petitioner who is so cruel that he never took care of the respondent and his newly born baby and continued to torture her due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. It is stated in the written statement that the respondent is a normal lady and she is performing her matrimonial obligation. It is alleged that the petitioner- husband in order to get the decree of divorce lodged a complaint before D.L.S.A, Jamshedpur vide Pre-Litigation Case No.53/2015 but he never made any allegation of mental disorder in that complaint. At present, she is living in the house of the petitioner and doing all the household works as a normal lady and, as such, a prayer has been made that the original suit is liable to be dismissed with cost. 7. At present, she is living in the house of the petitioner and doing all the household works as a normal lady and, as such, a prayer has been made that the original suit is liable to be dismissed with cost. 7. Learned Family Judge, after institution of the said case, taking into consideration of the pleadings of the parties has formulated the issues and has decided the lis by refusing to grant divorce to the petitioner/appellant. 8. The aforesaid judgment by which divorce has not been granted is under challenge by filing the instant appeal. Submission of behalf of the appellant-husband: 9. Mr. Devesh Ajmani, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband has taken the following grounds: (i) There is an error in the impugned judgment, since, each and every aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration based upon the documentary evidences as well as ocular evidences. (ii) The element of cruelty and mental disorder has been found to be there if the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant- husband will be taken into consideration but without appreciating the same properly the learned Family Judge has come to the finding by holding that no element either of cruelty or mental disorder is there and, as such, the impugned judgment and decree suffers from an error. (iii) It has been contended that the appellant has been meted out with cruelty at the hands of the respondent due to her abnormal behaviour as would be evident from the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant-husband, but the same has not been taken into consideration. (iv) It has been contended that though the learned Family Judge has proceeded the matter and dismissed the original suit, but he has failed to appreciate the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant as in the trial, the evidence has come that it was the respondent-wife who has committed cruelty upon him by her cruel behaviour and act. 10. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is suffering from perversity, therefore, needs interference. Submission of behalf of the respondent-wife: 11. Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife has taken the following grounds: (i) There is no error in the impugned judgement. 10. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is suffering from perversity, therefore, needs interference. Submission of behalf of the respondent-wife: 11. Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife has taken the following grounds: (i) There is no error in the impugned judgement. The learned Family Judge has considered the entire issue and on the basis of evidence as led by the parties has passed the order impugned as such same may not be interfered with. (ii) The appellant has sought divorce on the ground that the respondent-wife is of unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or intermittently for mental disorder and the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent but the learned Family Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, has held that the entire allegations levelled in are absolutely illegal, uncalled for and has rightly dismissed the suit. (iii) It has also been submitted that the learned Family Court after taking in to consideration the material available on record has found that the conduct of the appellant/ husband has never been towards salvaging the institution of marriage as it is he who has come for dissolution of the marriage, therefore on the pretext of the aforesaid categorical finding of the Family Court, the impugned order requires no interference. 12. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that if on that pretext, the factum of cruelty and desertion has not been found to be established, hence, the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from an error. Analysis: 13. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, gone through the impugned judgment as well as the Trial Court Records, as also the testimonies of the witnesses and the documents exhibited therein. 14. The learned Family Judge has formulated altogether five issues, for ready reference the same are being quoted hereinbelow: i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? ii) Whether the applicant has valid cause of action? iii) Whether the respondent has been incurably of unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent? iv) Whether the applicant is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and insanity? iii) Whether the respondent has been incurably of unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent? iv) Whether the applicant is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and insanity? v) To what other relief or reliefs the applicant is entitled for? 15. First of all, the learned Family Judge has taken into consideration the issue no.(iii) and (iv) i.e., the ground of mental disorder and cruelty. The learned Family Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties for deciding the issues involved in Original Suit No.275 of 2017. 16. This Court in order to appreciate the aforesaid rival submission before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment needs to discuss herein the relevant part of the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties before the learned Family Court, wherein the element of cruelty and mental disorder has been shown by the petitioner-husband. 17. During the trial, four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the appellant-husband who himself has been examined PW1 and exhibited some documents. PW2-Amiya Krishna Sahu is a staff of CIP- Kanke and PW3-Navin Kumar is the friend of the appellant. 18. In support of her contention, the respondent-wife has also examined three witnesses including herself as RW1 and exhibited some documents. RW2 -Anju Singh and RW3-Ranju Singh are the elder sisters of the respondent who have supported the pleadings of the respondent. 19. The respondent-wife has produced some documents which are, photocopy of the certified copy of the statement on oath/cross in Misc. Case No. 180/17 of the appellant-husband which has been marked as Exhibit-A, photocopy of the letter issued by the Principal of Gulmohar School dtd. 17.06.2019 indicating pending fees which has been marked as Exhibit-B, photocopy of certified copy of the Complaint Case No. 534 of 2018 which has been marked as Exhibit-C , photocopy of the certified copy of the statement on oath/cross of the appellant-husband in Mat. Suit No.275/17 which has been marked as Exhibit-D, photocopy of the letter dtd. 04.06.2015 to D.L.S.A., by the appellant-husband which has been marked as Exhibit-E, biodata of the respondent-Anju Devi which has been marked as Exhibit-F, photocopy of the 10 th Std. Suit No.275/17 which has been marked as Exhibit-D, photocopy of the letter dtd. 04.06.2015 to D.L.S.A., by the appellant-husband which has been marked as Exhibit-E, biodata of the respondent-Anju Devi which has been marked as Exhibit-F, photocopy of the 10 th Std. Mark Sheet and Passing Certificate of Annu Devi which has been marked as Exhibit-G, photocopy of the 12 th Std. Provisional Certificate of Annu Devi which has been marked as Exhibit-H, photocopy of 12 th Std. Mark Sheet of the respondent which has been marked as Exhibit-I, photocopy of the Graduation Mark Sheet (Ranchi University) of the respondent has been marked as Exhibit- J, photocopy of the character certificate of the respondent issued by Graduate College, Jamshedpur has been marked as Exhibit-K, photocopy of the Mark Sheet/Certificate of the respondent for Diploma in Child Education and applied psychology has been marked as Exhibit-L and photocopy of the “Work Experience Letter” issued to the respondent by Kids Career Center dtd. 10.07.2008 has been marked as Exhibit-M. 20. The appellant-husband in his evidence on oath has stated that he got married to the respondent as per Hindu rites and customs on 18.04.2008. After the marriage he brought her to his house with a hope that he will lead a happy marital life with his wife. But only after some months of the marriage his wife started creating disputes on small issues without any reason although he wanted to lead marital life with her giving her status of a wife but she always left his house and went to her parental house. He has deposed that on 17.09.2009 he was blessed with a son from his wife but thereafter she became violent and she did not prepare food and whenever he came from work, he found his wife sleeping and he had to prepare food. When he tried to find out as to why she keeps sleeping, then he found that she takes medicine and prior to her marriage she has been suffering from schizophrenia and she regularly took medicines and used to go to the doctor for treatment. Prior to her marriage, she was taking treatment in Telco Hospital and later on she started taking treatment in Ranchi Mental Hospital. He also took the O.P (the respondent herein) to Kanke Mental Hospital, Ranchi for her treatment and the doctor gave medicine and said that the disease is an old one. Prior to her marriage, she was taking treatment in Telco Hospital and later on she started taking treatment in Ranchi Mental Hospital. He also took the O.P (the respondent herein) to Kanke Mental Hospital, Ranchi for her treatment and the doctor gave medicine and said that the disease is an old one. But the fact that the respondent is a mental patient was concealed at the time of his marriage and that she was suffering from schizophrenia. The respondent-O.P without any reason went to her parental house on 27.10.2016 and now she is not making physical relation with him. It is stated that after getting tortured from the O.P (respondent herein) now it is not in his interest to stay with her because any incident may take place if he stays with her, so he is entitled for dissolution of his marriage. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he was not having any complaint against his wife till 04.6.2015. He has further stated that his wife could not do household work and she was also not able to take care of her child and used to fight with his parents but he did not make any complaint regarding this anywhere and presently, his wife is staying with him. He further stated that he gave an application in DLSA on 04.06.2015 and in Para-9 of the plaint of this case he has pleaded that his wife is a mental patient but the said fact is not there in his petition dtd. 04.06.2015 given in DLSA. He has admitted by saying that it is true that he did not level the allegation in the petition given in DLSA, the allegations which he has levelled in his plaint of the case. He has further deposed that in the Pre-litigation Case bearing No. 53/15 he had levelled allegation that his in-laws interfered in his marital life but after a compromise took place in the said case, he withdrew that case. He has denied the suggestion that on 11.04.2015 he assaulted his wife but it is true that his wife made the complaint in the police station. He has denied the suggestion that on 11.04.2015 he assaulted his wife but it is true that his wife made the complaint in the police station. He has further stated that it is also wrong to say that on 01.05.2018 he assaulted his wife but it is true that he slapped his child regarding his studies and it is also correct that a case was lodged in Telco P.S on 02.05.2018 levelling allegation that he had assaulted his wife and child. He has denied that it is correct that on 26.06.2018 he had given in writing in the police station that he is taking his wife and child and he will not assault them. He has further stated that he has filed this case on June 2017 and he and his wife are staying together since July 2017. He has admitted that now his wife prepares foods for her child but he is not given food always. He has admitted that his wife is staying in his house with him. He has denied the suggestion that as per his wish he makes physical relation with his wife. He further stated that he made physical relation with his wife for the last time on 06.12.2016. 21. PW2-Amiya Krishna Sahu, who in his examination in chief on oath has deposed that he has been authorized by Director CIP, Kanke, Ranchi to give evidence. He has stated that he has filed a letter in the Court in that regard and the same has been marked as Exhibit-1. He has stated that the patient of the case in which he has come to depose, is having C.R.F No. 203785/A and the name of the patient is Annu. He has stated that he is filing the xerox copy of the certified copy of the original documents pertaining to treatment of the patient, which is in 136 pages and the said documents have been certified by Senior Medical Officer, Dr. Arvind Kumar which have been marked as Exhibit-2. He has stated that the said patient was treated in their hospital for mental illness but her disease is not genetic. In the cross-examination, he has deposed that he treated the said patient from 03.10.2016 to 22.10.2016. The patient had come with a referral letter to his hospital along with her husband. He has stated that as per the said letter the patient was referred by Dr. In the cross-examination, he has deposed that he treated the said patient from 03.10.2016 to 22.10.2016. The patient had come with a referral letter to his hospital along with her husband. He has stated that as per the said letter the patient was referred by Dr. M.L. Ali, Head Medical Services, Tata Motors Hospital, Jamshedpur and when patient was discharged, there was improvement in her mental condition, but thereafter she had to take medicine. 22. PW3-Navin Kumar who in his examination in chief given by way of affidavit dtd. 14.02.2019 has deposed that the petitioner is his friend and both of them are working in Telco Company. He has deposed that the petitioner got married to the respondent on 18.04.2008 and he had seen the respondent prior to her marriage in Telco Colony and he had also seen her several times in Telco Hospital. He has deposed that some months after the marriage the petitioner (husband) told him that his wife is suffering from mental illness and he is getting her treated and petitioner also told him that prior to her marriage she was getting treatment in Telco Hospital, Jamshedpur. He has further deposed that the petitioner (the appellant-husband) was also getting his wife treated in Kanke Mental Hospital, Ranchi and the petitioner also told him that by concealing the said fact of mental illness of the O.P she was married to the petitioner. He has deposed that after getting fed-up of the behaviour of the respondent, the petitioner left his Telco quarter and now he does not want to live with the O.P because due to mental illness of the O.P she can kill him anytime. In the cross-examination he has deposed that he was present in the marriage party and his house is 2 K.M away from the house of the O.P. He has denied the suggestion that he is not having the knowledge that petitioner always tortures his wife and wants to take divorce from her and remarry, so he has filed this case leveling false allegations. 23. RW1-Annu Devi has deposed on oath that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 18.04.2008 at her residence as per Hindu customs. After one year of the marriage, the petitioner and his parents started taunting her for bringing less dowry and the petitioner and her in- laws started torturing her physically and mentally for the sake of dowry. 23. RW1-Annu Devi has deposed on oath that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 18.04.2008 at her residence as per Hindu customs. After one year of the marriage, the petitioner and his parents started taunting her for bringing less dowry and the petitioner and her in- laws started torturing her physically and mentally for the sake of dowry. She has deposed that she ignored all those acts with the bonafide belief that one day good sense will prevail in the mind of the petitioner and she will be able to lead her happy conjugal life. Meanwhile, one male child was born on 17.09.2009 but still the behaviour of the petitioner/husband and her in-laws did not change and they continued with their cruel behaviour towards her. She has further deposed that she is neither suffering from any mental disease nor she was treated for any mental problem and she is a normal lady. She has deposed that before the marriage the petitioner inquired about everything about her and her family and after being satisfied, he gave his consent to the marriage. She has stated that nothing was suppressed by her and her family at the time of her marriage as alleged by the petitioner. She has deposed that since the day of living in the house of the petitioner she paid every regard to the petitioner and his family but it is the petitioner who is so cruel that he never took care of her and her newly born baby and continued torturing her for the sake of dowry and finally filed this case with all sorts of false and manufactured allegations. She has further deposed that all the allegation in the plaint are creation of the petitioner, which shows his malafide intention. She has stated that she is a normal lady and performing every matrimonial obligation and she is doing every household duty and she never lives separately from the petitioner. She has stated that she is still living with the petitioner in his house as his wife and performing every matrimonial obligation. She has deposed that all the allegations in the plaint are false and the present case has been filed with fictitious cause of action. She has stated that she is still living with the petitioner in his house as his wife and performing every matrimonial obligation. She has deposed that all the allegations in the plaint are false and the present case has been filed with fictitious cause of action. She had deposed that the petitioner used to humiliate, abuse and beat her regularly and for which he made complaint to the local police many times and every time he brought her in his house by giving assurance of good behaviour. She has alleged that her husband wants to marry another girl and only for that reason he has filed this case. In the cross-examination she has deposed that she has filed a case of torture for dowry against her husband, father-in-law and mother-in- law. She has stated that his sister took her to Kanke for treatment thrice. She has denied the suggestion of the petitioner that as she was a mental patient so her behaviour towards her in-laws was bad and due to which she went to the quarter to live with her husband. She has also denied the suggestion of the petitioner that still she is suffering from mental illness and due to which she damages the household articles. 24. RW2-Anju Singh, who in her examination in chief on oath dtd. 12.12.2019 has deposed that respondent-Annu Devi is her younger sister. She has stated that Annu Devi (the respondent herein) got married to Sanjay Kumar (the appellant herein) on 18.04.2008 as per Hindu customs and till one month of the marriage everything was OK but after that Sanjay Kumar and his family started torturing her sister Annu mentally and physically for bringing less dowry. She has deposed that prior to marriage of her sister, father, brother and other relatives as well as sister of Sanjay had come to see her. She has stated that in the marriage as per demand of Sanjay and his family, cash of Rs. 4,00,000/- and articles worth Rs. 1,00,000/- was given. She has alleged that for non-fulfillment of demand of money, several times Annu was badly assaulted and injured. She has deposed that her parents and sister always complained in the Police station but every time Sanjay used to enter into a compromise. 4,00,000/- and articles worth Rs. 1,00,000/- was given. She has alleged that for non-fulfillment of demand of money, several times Annu was badly assaulted and injured. She has deposed that her parents and sister always complained in the Police station but every time Sanjay used to enter into a compromise. She has deposed that her sister (the respondent) was even not allowed to talk to her parents nor she was allowed to come to her parental home. She has further deposed that Sanjay and his family members used to abuse Annu and she was always tortured mentally and physically. She has deposed that seven years after their marriage on 24.06.2015 Sanjay gave an application in the local Court but he has not mentioned about mental illness of Annu in the said application. But in June 2017, when Sanjay filed this case for dissolution of marriage, he claimed that Annu is mentally ill since her birth. She has deposed that her sister (the respondent) was assaulted and given medicine forcibly for mental illness by her husband. She has deposed that Annu is an educated lady and she taught for two years prior to her marriage in Kids Career School. She has deposed that for the last one and half years, Annu is staying along with her son in the Company’s quarter and Sanjay (the appellant herein) never gives any money to her for her expenses and he has also not deposited school fees for one year of his son. She has stated that in spite of order of the Hon'ble High Court in the dowry case to deposit Rs. 4,00,000/- by the petitioner, he has not deposited the amount till date. She has deposed that his sister is completely healthy and she is not having any mental illness but Sanjay Kumar (the appellant herein) for taking money and performing marriage with the Nanad of his sister has filed this case on false facts. She has deposed that the allegations leveled by Sanjay Kumar is false and concocted. In the cross-examination, she has stated that Annu (the respondent herein) was not having any disease prior to her marriage and after the marriage due to torture, she has gone into depression. She has denied the suggestion that as Annu is mentally ill and her behaviour is not normal, so her husband, son and other members do not want to live with her. She has denied the suggestion that as Annu is mentally ill and her behaviour is not normal, so her husband, son and other members do not want to live with her. She has also denied the suggestion of the petitioner that as Annu tortured her husband Sanjay Kumar, so he is staying separately from his wife Annu and so Sanjay has filed this case. 25. RW3-Ranju Devi in her examination in chief on oath dtd. 15.06.2022 has stated that the respondent-Annu Devi is her younger sister, who got married to Sanjay Kumar (appellant herein) on 18.04.2008 at her parents’ house as per Hindu customs. She has deposed that till one year of the marriage of his sister, everything was smooth but after one year Sanjay Kumar and his family members started torturing his sister both mentally and physically for bringing less dowry. She has deposed that prior to the marriage of her sister, father, brother and other relatives of Sanjay as well as his sister had come to see her sister. She has stated that in the marriage as per demand of Sanjay and his family, cash of Rs. 4,00,000/-and articles worth was given. She has deposed that for demand of money several times Annu was badly assaulted and injured. She has stated that her parents and sister always complained in the local police station but every time Sanjay used to enter into a compromise. She has further deposed that his sister was even not allowed to talk to her parents nor she was allowed to come to her parental home. She has stated that Sanjay and his family members used to abuse Annu and she was always tortured mentally and physically. She has deposed that seven years after their marriage, on 24.06.2015 Sanjay gave an application in the local Court but he has not mentioned about mental illness of Annu in the said application. In June, 2017 when Sanjay filed this case for dissolution of marriage, he claimed that Annu is mentally ill since her birth. She has deposed that her sister was assaulted and given medicine forcibly for mental illness by her husband. She has stated that Annu is an educated lady and she taught for two years prior to her marriage in Kids Career School. She has deposed that her sister was assaulted and given medicine forcibly for mental illness by her husband. She has stated that Annu is an educated lady and she taught for two years prior to her marriage in Kids Career School. She has stated that for the last one and half year Annu is staying along with her son in the Company’s quarter and Sanjay never gives any money to her for her expenses and he has also not deposited school fees for one year of his son. She has deposed that inspite of order of the Hon'ble High Court in the dowry case to deposit Rs. 4,00,000/- by the petitioner, he has not deposited the amount till date. She has deposed that her sister is completely healthy and she is not having any mental illness, but Sanjay Kumar (the appellant herein) for taking money and performing marriage with the Nanad of his sister has filed this case on false facts. She has deposed that the allegations leveled by Sanjay Kumar is false and concocted. In the cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion of the petitioner that Annu's mental condition was not proper and has also denied that as her mental condition is not proper, so anytime she can attack Sanjay Kumar and can cause injury to him. 26. The learned Family Judge has appreciated the entire facts and evidence and has come to the conclusion that the appellant-husband has failed to make the ground either cruelty or mental disorder and, as such, has dismissed the suit which is under challenge in the instant appeal. 27. The fact about filing of suit on the ground of cruelty and mental disorder is admitted one as per the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant. 28. The appellant-husband has tried to establish the element of cruelty and mental disorder upon him at the hands of the respondent-wife. 29. The appellant-husband all along has alleged the issue of cruelty and mental disorder which he was getting subjected by his wife and in order to establish the same the evidences has been laid as has been referred hereinabove. 30. 29. The appellant-husband all along has alleged the issue of cruelty and mental disorder which he was getting subjected by his wife and in order to establish the same the evidences has been laid as has been referred hereinabove. 30. From the testimony so recorded of the appellant-husband and respondent/wife the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has come to the conclusion that in the instant case, except the vague and omnibus allegations made by husband against his respondent-wife, no cogent convincing, clinching evidence, no concrete documentary evidence has been led to substantiate the charges of cruelty, and mental illness. The onus to prove the grounds taken for divorce squarely rests on the husband which are required to be discharged by leading a cogent, tangible and reliable evidence. 31. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant on the issue of perversity needs to refer herein the interpretation of the word “perverse” as has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence. 32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206 while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment reads as under: “24. The expression “perverse” has been dealt with in a number of cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [ (2001) 1 SCC 501 ] this Court observed that the expression “perverse” means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity. 25. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. [ AIR 1966 Cal 31 ] the Court observed that “perverse finding” means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. 25. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. [ AIR 1966 Cal 31 ] the Court observed that “perverse finding” means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341 ] the Court observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the findings of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings. 26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58] the Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the Court observed that a “perverse verdict” may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court defined “perverse” as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct, etc. 27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner: 1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 6th Edn. “Perverse.—Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable.” 2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, International Edn. Perverse.—Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable. 3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn. Perverse.—Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law. 4. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.) Perverse.—Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant. 5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Edn. “Perverse.—A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence.” 33. In the context of the aforesaid factual aspect only seminal issue has to be decide herein that “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get divorce dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/appellant with OP/wife U/s 13(1) (i-a) & iii of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? 34. In the context of the aforesaid factual aspect only seminal issue has to be decide herein that “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get divorce dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/appellant with OP/wife U/s 13(1) (i-a) & iii of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? 34. The “cruelty” has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. S. Dastana , (1975) 2 SCC 326 wherein it has been laid down that the Court has to enquire, as to whether, the conduct charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in the mind of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent. 35. This Court deems it fit and proper to take into consideration the meaning of ‘cruelty’ as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi , (1988) 1 SCC 105 wherein the wife alleged that the appellant-husband and his parents demanded dowry. The Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that “cruelty” can have no fixed definition. 36. According to the Hon’ble Apex Court, “cruelty” is the “conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect of matrimonial obligations”. It is the conduct which adversely affects the spouse. Such cruelty can be either “mental” or “physical”, intentional or unintentional. For example, unintentionally waking your spouse up in the middle of the night may be mental cruelty; intention is not an essential element of cruelty but it may be present. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and more “a question of fact and degree.” 37. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed therein that while dealing with such complaints of cruelty it is important for the Court to not search for a standard in life, since cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in another case. What must be considered include the kind of life the parties are used to, “their economic and social conditions”, and the “culture and human values to which they attach importance.” 38. The nature of allegations need not only be illegal conduct such as asking for dowry. Making allegations against the spouse in the written statement filed before the court in judicial proceedings may also be held to constitute cruelty. 39. The nature of allegations need not only be illegal conduct such as asking for dowry. Making allegations against the spouse in the written statement filed before the court in judicial proceedings may also be held to constitute cruelty. 39. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat , (1994) 1 SCC 337 , the wife alleged in her written statement that her husband was suffering from “mental problems and paranoid disorder”. The wife’s lawyer also levelled allegations of “lunacy” and “insanity” against the husband and his family while he was conducting a cross-examination. The Hon’ble Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to constitute “cruelty”. 40. In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate , (2003) 6 SCC 334 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed by taking into consideration the allegations levelled by the husband in his written statement that his wife was “unchaste” and had indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and that his wife was having an extramarital affair. These allegations, given the context of an educated Indian woman, were held to constitute “cruelty” itself. 41. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar , (2021) 3 SCC 742 , has been pleased to observe that while judging whether the conduct is cruel or not, what has to be seen is whether that conduct, which is sustained over a period of time, renders the life of the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make one live with the other. The conduct may take the form of abusive or humiliating treatment, causing mental pain and anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. The conduct complained of must be “grave” and “weighty” and trivial irritations and normal wear and tear of marriage would not constitute mental cruelty as a ground for divorce. 42. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vidhya Viswanathan v. Kartik Balakrishnan , (2014) 15 SCC 21 has specifically held that cruelty is to be determined on whole facts of the case and the matrimonial relations between the spouses and the word ‘cruelty’ has not been defined and it has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct and one which is adversely affecting the other. 43. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct and one which is adversely affecting the other. 43. Before entering in to the issue of cruelty, it needs to refer herein that it is settled position that a proceeding under Hindu Marriage act is not criminal proceeding where proof beyond reasonable doubt is required rather preponderance of probability" is enough. 44. It needs to refer herein that the appellant husband in his evidence had stated that after some months of the marriage his wife started creating disputes on small issues without any reason and she always left his house and went to her parental house. on 17.09.2009 he was blessed with a son from his wife but thereafter she became violent and she did not prepare food and whenever he came from work, he found his wife sleeping and he had to prepare food. The respondent-O.P without any reason went to her parental house on 27.10.2016 and now she is not making physical relation with him. It had been stated that after getting tortured from the O.P (respondent herein) now it is not in his interest to stay with her because any incident may take place if he stays with her., 45. But from the perusal of the cross-examination of the appellant/husband, it is evident that the appellant husband had not lodged any complaint against his respondent wife till 04.6.2015 as he had stated in his testimony that his wife could not do household work and she was also not able to take care of her child and used to fight with his parents but he did not make any complaint regarding this anywhere and presently, his wife is staying with him. 46. Further he has denied the suggestion that on 11.04.2015 he assaulted his respondent/wife but it has come on record that his respondent/wife made the complaint in the police station and further a case was lodged in Telco P.S on 02.05.2018 levelling allegation that he had assaulted his wife and child. Further from cross-examination it is evident that he and his wife are staying together since July 2017 and appellant has admitted that now his wife prepares foods for her child. 47. Further from cross-examination it is evident that he and his wife are staying together since July 2017 and appellant has admitted that now his wife prepares foods for her child. 47. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions on the issue of cruelty, is of considered view that the issue of cruelty as has been alleged by the appellant-husband against his wife could not be proved because no concrete evidence to that effect has been produced by the appellant. 48. Thus, as per the discussions made hereinabove and law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court which has also been referred herein above this Court has no reason to take different view that has been taken by the learned Family Court proving the ground of cruelty. 49. So far as the issue of mental illness is concerned it is evident from the impugned order that the learned Family Court has categorically held that no cogent evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff/husband in order to prove the mental illness of OP- wife and therefore the Family Court has also decided this issue against the appellant/husband. 50. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act 1955 which reads as under: 13. Divorce. — (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party— ------------ (iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. Explanation- In this clause— (a) the expression “mental disorder” means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and include schizophrenia; (b) the expression “psychopathic disorder” means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including subnormality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; or………” 51. The aforesaid provision shows that there are two separate grounds in the provision viz. The aforesaid provision shows that there are two separate grounds in the provision viz. (a) incurable unsound mind; and, (b) respondent spouse has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder and the disorder is of such kind and of such extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. 52. From the wording of the aforesaid provision, it can be said that the mental condition like incurable unsound mind mentioned in the first part or the mental disorder mentioned in the second part needs to be proved by expert evidence and that evidence needs to satisfy the Court that such mental condition exists. 53. From the wording of the provision, it can be said that the second part of the provision has wide scope. For this part, it is not necessary that mental disorder is incurable. However, the mental disorder must be of such kind and extent that the Court needs to be satisfied that it is not advisable to ask the petitioner to live with the respondent. The scope shows that there is no limit to the kind of mental disorder as no specific kind is mentioned. However, the term “has been suffering” shows that the period of illness must not be too short or the petition should not be based on one or two instances showing such mental disorder. 54. The term “intermittently” cannot be misread in this provision to infer that the mental illness returns after the treatment within few days. The term “extent” is also important and on that also the Court needs to be satisfied to come to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be reasonably expected to live with the husband. 55. Thus, it is evident that the relief is discretionary and while using discretion, the Court is expected to keep in mind the aforesaid things as mentioned above. Further, the burden to prove mental disorder mentioned as second part of the aforesaid provision or the burden to prove incurable unsound mind lies on the party who seeks to use the ground. 56. It needs to refer herein that Psychiatrist is an expert but in view of provision of section 45 of the Evidence Act, it is up to the Court to either rely on the opinion or to refuse to do so. 56. It needs to refer herein that Psychiatrist is an expert but in view of provision of section 45 of the Evidence Act, it is up to the Court to either rely on the opinion or to refuse to do so. Further, he being a witness, his credibility can be impeached like the credibility of any other witnesses and his veracity can be tested as provided in section 146 and other provisions of Evidence Act. As psychiatrist is expected to give evidence on the basis of the examination of the patient done by him, the symptoms noted by him, the treatment and the follow up treatment given by him and the record created by him needs to be considered both for corroboration and contradiction purpose. In such a case the evidence of other witnesses or the circumstances which relates to the behaviour of the respondent can be considered by the Court as that can help strengthening the opinion or create probability that the opinion has no justification and it is weak. 57. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kollam Chandra Sekhar v. Kollam Padma Latha , (2014) 1 SCC 225 has categorically observed that the ideas of unsoundness of ‘mind’ and ‘mental disorder’ occur in the section as grounds for dissolution of a marriage, require the assessment of the degree of the ‘mental disorder’. Its degree must be such that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not recognised as grounds for grant of decree. If the mere existence of any degree of mental abnormality could justify dissolution of a marriage few marriages would, indeed, survive in law. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under: 22. The relevant portions with regard to “unsoundness of mind” and “mental disorder” from the case referred to supra are extracted hereunder: (Ram Narain Gupta case [ (1988) 4 SCC 247 ] , SCC pp. 254-256, paras 20-24) “20. The context in which the ideas of unsoundness of ‘mind’ and ‘mental disorder’ occur in the section as grounds for dissolution of a marriage, require the assessment of the degree of the ‘mental disorder’. Its degree must be such that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not recognised as grounds for grant of decree. Its degree must be such that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not recognised as grounds for grant of decree. If the mere existence of any degree of mental abnormality could justify dissolution of a marriage few marriages would, indeed, survive in law. 21. The answer to the apparently simple—and perhaps misleading— question as to ‘who is normal?’ runs inevitably into philosophical thickets of the concept of mental normalcy and as involved therein, of the ‘mind’ itself. These concepts of ‘mind’, ‘mental phenomena’, etc. are more known than understood and the theories of ‘mind’ and ‘mentation’ do not indicate any internal consistency, let alone validity, of their basic ideas. Theories of ‘mind’ with cognate ideas of ‘perception’ and ‘consciousness’ encompass a wide range of thoughts, more ontological than epistemological. Theories of mental phenomena are diverse and include the dualist concept—shared by Descartes and Sigmund Freud—of the separateness of the existence of the physical or the material world as distinguished from the non-material mental world with its existence only spatially and not temporally. There is, again, the theory which stresses the neurological basis of the ‘mental phenomenon’ by asserting the functional correlation of the neuronal arrangements of the brain with mental phenomena. The ‘behaviourist’ tradition, on the other hand, interprets all reference to mind as ‘constructs’ out of behaviour. ‘Functionalism’, however, seems to assert that mind is the logical or functional state of physical systems. But all theories seem to recognise, in varying degrees, that the psychometric control over the mind operates at a level not yet fully taught to science. When a person is oppressed by intense and seemingly insoluble moral dilemmas, or when grief of loss of dear ones etch away all the bright colours of life, or where a broken marriage brings with it the loss of emotional security, what standards of normalcy of behaviour could be formulated and applied? The arcane infallibility of science has not fully pervaded the study of the non-material dimensions of ‘being’. 22. Speaking of the indisposition of science towards this study, a learned author says: ‘… we have inherited cultural resistance to treating the conscious mind as a biological phenomenon like any other. This goes back to Descartes in the seventeenth century. Descartes divided the world into two kinds of substances: mental substances and physical substances. 22. Speaking of the indisposition of science towards this study, a learned author says: ‘… we have inherited cultural resistance to treating the conscious mind as a biological phenomenon like any other. This goes back to Descartes in the seventeenth century. Descartes divided the world into two kinds of substances: mental substances and physical substances. Physical substances were the proper domain of science and mental substances were the property of religion. Something of an acceptance of this division exists even to the present day. So, for example, consciousness and subjectivity are often regarded as unsuitable topics for science. And this reluctance to deal with consciousness and subjectivity is part of a persistent objectifying tendency. People think science must be about objectively observable phenomena. On occasions when I have lectured to audiences of biologists and neurophysiologists, I have found many of them very reluctant to treat the mind in general and consciousness in particular as a proper domain of scientific investigation. … the use of the noun ‘mind’ is dangerously inhabited by the ghosts of old philosophical theories. It is very difficult to resist the idea that the mind is a kind of a thing, or at least an arena, or at least some kind of black box in which all of these mental processes occur.’ [ John R. Searle, Minds, Brains and Science-Reith Lectures (Harvard University Press, 1984), pp. 10 and 11.] 23. Lord Wilberforce, referring to the psychological basis of physical illness said that the area of ignorance of the body-mind relation seems to expand with that of knowledge. In McLoughlin v. O'Brian [(1983) 1 AC 410 : (1982) 2 WLR 982 : (1982) 2 All ER 298 (HL)] , the learned Lord said, though in a different context: (AC p. 418 B : All ER p. 301) ‘… Whatever is unknown about the mind-body relationship (and the area of ignorance seems to expand with that of knowledge), it is now accepted by medical science that recognisable and severe physical damage to the human body and system may be caused by the impact, through the senses, of external events on the mind. There may thus be produced what is as identifiable an illness as any that may be caused by direct physical impact. It is safe to say that this, in general terms, is understood by the ordinary man or woman who is hypothesised by the courts….’ 24. There may thus be produced what is as identifiable an illness as any that may be caused by direct physical impact. It is safe to say that this, in general terms, is understood by the ordinary man or woman who is hypothesised by the courts….’ 24. But the illnesses that are called ‘mental’ are kept distinguished from those that ail the ‘body’ in a fundamental way. In Philosophy and Medicine, Vol. 5 at p. X the learned editor refers to what distinguishes the two qualitatively: ‘Undoubtedly, mental illness is so disvalued because it strikes at the very roots of our personhood. It visits us with uncontrollable fears, obsessions, compulsions and anxieties…. … This is captured in part by the language we use in describing the mentally ill. One is an hysteric, is a neurotic, is an obsessive, is a schizophrenic, is a manic-depressive. On the other hand, one has heart disease, has cancer, has the flu, has malaria, has smallpox….’” (emphasis in original) The principle laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case with all fours is applicable to the fact situation on hand wherein this Court has rightly referred to Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act and Explanation to the said clause and made certain pertinent observations regarding “unsound mind” or “mental disorder” and the application of the same as grounds for dissolution of marriage. This Court cautioned that Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act does not make a mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of marriage. 35. In the English case of Whysall v. Whysall [1960 P 52 : (1959) 3 WLR 592 : (1959) 3 All ER 389] , it was held that a spouse is “incurably of unsound mind” if he or she is of such mental incapacity as to make normal married life impossible and there is no prospect of any improvement in mental health, which would make this possible in future. The High Court of Judicature of Calcutta, in Pramatha Kumar Maity v. Ashima Maity [ AIR 1991 Cal 123 ] has held that mental disorder of the wife, even if proved, cannot, by itself, warrant a decree of divorce and it must be further proved that it is of such a nature as the husband could not be expected to live with the wife. 38. 38. We are of the view that the High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction has rightly come to a different conclusion that the respondent is not suffering from the ailment of schizophrenia or incurable unsoundness of mind. Further, the High Court has rightly rejected the finding of the trial court which is based on Ext. B-10 and other documentary and oral evidence by applying the ratio laid down by this Court in Ram Narain Gupta v. Rameshwari Gupta [ (1988) 4 SCC 247 ] referred to supra. A pertinent point to be taken into consideration is that the respondent had not only completed MBBS but also did a postgraduate diploma in Medicine and was continuously working as a Government Medical Officer and had she been suffering from any serious kind of mental disorder, particularly, acute type of schizophrenia, it would have been impossible for her to work in the said post. The appellant husband cannot simply abandon his wife because she is suffering from sickness. Therefore, the High Court allowed both the CMAs and dismissed OP No. 203 of 2000 filed by the appellant for divorce and allowed OP No. 1 of 1999 filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights wherein the High Court granted decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the respondent. 58. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has categorically held that marriage is highly revered in India and we are a nation that prides itself on the strong foundation of our marriages, come hell or high water, rain or sunshine. Life is made up of good times and bad, and the bad times can bring with it terrible illnesses and extreme hardships. The partners in a marriage must weather these storms and embrace the sunshine with equanimity. Any person may have bad health, this is not their fault and most times, it is not within their control, as in the present case, the respondent was unwell and was taking treatment for the same. The illness had its fair share of problems. Can this be a reason for the appellant to abandon her and seek dissolution of marriage. 59. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court cautioned that Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act does not make a mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of marriage. 60. The illness had its fair share of problems. Can this be a reason for the appellant to abandon her and seek dissolution of marriage. 59. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court cautioned that Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act does not make a mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of marriage. 60. Now adverting fact of the instant case, it is evident from perusal of the cross-examination of the husband/appellant that the appellant/husband had given an application in DLSA on 04.06.2015 and in Para-9 of the plaint of this case he has pleaded that his wife is a mental patient but the said fact is not there in his petition dtd. 04.06.2015 given in DLSA. He has admitted by saying that it is true that he did not level the allegation in the petition given in DLSA, the allegations which he has levelled in his plaint of the case. 61. Further the appellant/husband has examined PW2-Amiya Krishna Sahu, who in his examination in chief has stated that he is filing the xerox copy of the certified copy of the original documents pertaining to treatment of the patient, which is in 136 pages and the said documents have been certified by Senior Medical Officer, Dr. Arvind Kumar which have been marked as Exhibit-2. He has stated that the said patient was treated in their hospital for mental illness but her disease is not genetic. 62. But at the same time P.W.2 in his cross-examination had stated that when patient was discharged, there was improvement in her mental condition. 63. Further it has come in the testimony of the respondent/wife that She has deposed that before the marriage the petitioner inquired about everything about her and her family and after being satisfied, he gave his consent to the marriage. She has stated that nothing was suppressed by her and her family at the time of her marriage as alleged by the petitioner. She had further deposed that the petitioner/husband who is so cruel that he never took care of her and her newly born baby and continued torturing her for the sake of dowry and finally filed this case with all sorts of false and manufactured allegations. In cross-examination she had denied the suggestion of the petitioner that still she is suffering from mental illness and due to which she damages the household articles. In cross-examination she had denied the suggestion of the petitioner that still she is suffering from mental illness and due to which she damages the household articles. 64. Further RW.2 sister of the respondent/wife had stated that seven years after their marriage on 24.06.2015 Sanjay gave an application in the local Court but he has not mentioned about mental illness of Annu in the said application. She has further deposed that his sister is completely healthy and she is not having any mental illness but Sanjay Kumar (the appellant herein) for taking money and performing marriage with the Nanad of his sister has filed this case on false facts. She has deposed that the allegations leveled by Sanjay Kumar is false and concocted. 65. The learned Family Court while appreciating the issue of mental illness has referred the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Narain Gupta v. Rameshwari Gupta , (1988) 4 SCC 247 has held that respondent wife was although given treatment in CIP Kanke, Ranchi for some mental illness but the evidence brought by the petitioner side does not in any way attract section 13(1)(iii) of the Act 1955, as after the marriage the respondent led a normal marital life with the petitioner and even gave birth to healthy child and admittedly at the time of recording of his evidence on 18.07.18 the respondent was staying with the petitioner. So all these shows that the behaviour of the respondent was normal. Further Ext-G to Ext-M which are marksheets and different certificates of the respondent shows that she is well educated and she has teaching experience also shows that she is normal and capable of performing her duties and obligations and minor mental stress or illness will not attract the provision of section 13(1)(iii) Act 1955. 66. Thus, on basis of discussion made hereinabove, it appears that the aforesaid ground of mental illness has been raised by the appellant/ husband on the flimsy ground and taking in to consideration the aforesaid factual aspect the learned Family Court has rightly decided the said issue against the plaintiff husband as such requires no interference by this Court. 67. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the learned Family Judge has considered the fact that the appellant-husband has miserably failed to establish the allegation of cruelty and mental disorder against the respondent. 67. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the learned Family Judge has considered the fact that the appellant-husband has miserably failed to establish the allegation of cruelty and mental disorder against the respondent. 68. This Court after discussing the aforesaid factual aspect along with the legal position and adverting to the consideration made by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment has found therefrom that the issue of element of cruelty and mental disorder has well been considered by the learned Family Judge. 69. On consideration of the evidence, the learned Family Judge has come to conclusion that the appellant-husband has miserably failed to establish the ground of cruelty and mental disorder against the respondent- wife. The aforesaid reason has led the learned Family Judge to dismiss the suit. 70. This Court, on consideration of the finding arrived at by the learned Family Judge and based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Judge is not coming under the fold of the perversity, since, the conscious consideration has been made of the evidences, both ocular and documentary, as would be evident from the impugned judgment. 71. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the judgment dated 28.03.2023 and the decree dated 05.04.2023 passed in Original Suit No.275 of 2017 by the learned Family Judge need no interference and, accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. 72. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of. I Agree - Rajesh Kumar, J.