JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J. The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 06.04.2022 and the decree dated 16.04.2022 passed in Original Suit No.551 of 2019 by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Family Court-I, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under section 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 of the parties was negotiated and settled by the parents of both the parties to the suit, during negotiation of marriage the parents and relatives of the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-wife) represented that the respondent-wife is a lady of sweet nature, social, educated, cultured and having sound mental status, the parents of the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the appellant-husband) and appellant himself believed the representations and given his consent for marriage with the respondent-wife. The marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the respondent-wife on 27.04.2016 in the parental home of the respondent-wife, on next day, respondent-wife came to her matrimonial home with the appellant, on the same day the appellant observed some abnormalities in the behaviour of the respondent- wife and also found some medicine in the luggage of the wife. After noticing abnormal behaviour of the respondent-wife, the appellant enquired in the matter from his in-laws, who informed him that the respondent has some mental problem and on the advice of the doctor, she is taking medicine, after aforesaid information, the appellant and his parents made further enquiry and got knowledge that since last three years, the respondent-wife is under the treatment of Dr. K.K. Sinha and she has also been treated by a doctor of Patna. On his advice, she is taking medicine, but parents of the respondent has not provided any prescription to the appellant or his family members, (even then the appellant and his family members supported her in her treatment). (ii) On 16.01.2017, suddenly respondent-wife became aggressive and violent, she attacked upon the appellant, when parents of the appellant tried to intervene then she also attacked upon them, anyhow all of them restrained her and informed her parents. (ii) On 16.01.2017, suddenly respondent-wife became aggressive and violent, she attacked upon the appellant, when parents of the appellant tried to intervene then she also attacked upon them, anyhow all of them restrained her and informed her parents. (iii) On getting information, parents of the respondent-wife came to the parental home of the appellant and they started beating the respondent but parents of the appellant restrained them, thereafter, the family members of the appellant taken her with them to the house of the sister of the respondent at Booti-More, Ranchi, thereafter on 17.01.17, on the request of the appellant, they brought the respondent-wife in the clinic of Dr. Ashok K. Prasad, who prescribed medicine. (iv) The respondent-wife revealed before the doctor that she is hearing some voices of unknown person when she is sitting alone and also someone came to her and provoked her for violence. After treatment, the appellant brought her with him but after some days, she again became violent in the effect of attack of insanity and tried to harm the plaintiff, then parents of the respondent-wife taken her to their house on the request of the appellant and his parent. After about two months, the appellant called her for follow up as advised by Dr. Ashok K. Prasad for her further treatment. (v) On 26.04.2017, they again visited to the clinic of the doctor who again advised medicines. Thereafter, the appellant kept the respondent with him. In April, she was pregnant, the doctor advised to keep eyes upon the respondent regularly as she may cause damage to her pregnancy, during pregnancy period of the respondent, she was regularly treated by Dr. Usha Rani. (vi) On 11.12.17, the respondent wife gave birth to the child, but she was reluctant and careless towards the child, she never offered breast feeding to the child. After birth of the child, appellant met with Dr. A.K. Prasad and informed him about her behaviour with the child, then, he suggested that child should not be left alone with the respondent, she will cause harm to the child but respondent herself not willing to keep the child with her and since birth, child is under the care of his grandmother. A.K. Prasad and informed him about her behaviour with the child, then, he suggested that child should not be left alone with the respondent, she will cause harm to the child but respondent herself not willing to keep the child with her and since birth, child is under the care of his grandmother. During pregnancy and after birth of the child, the respondent regularly complained about hallucination, as she was hearing the voices of someone and also reported to see someone but she was unable to identify the person or voices, during this period on several times, she tried to flee away from the house and on various occasions, she left the cooking gas opened. The respondent-wife was regularly treated by Doctor A.K. Prasad but her condition was not improved. (vii) On 17.01.18 the defendant started insisting to go to her parental house, when plaintiff said that doctor advised her for rest, she became violent and attacked upon the appellant-husband. On 17.01.2018, the brothers of the respondent-wife came to the parental home of the appellant-husband and taken away the respondent with them along with her entire belongings. In the month of February, 2018 on the occasion of marriage of the brother of the respondent, the appellant went to the parental home of the respondent, and after marriage ceremony asked the respondent to come with him but she denied to come with the appellant and on 19.01.18, the appellant informed to same to the local police and on 26th April, 2018 the appellant got knowledge that the family members of the respondent admitted her in Sarvam Neuro-psychiatric Centre, Kalka for her treatment, the doctors reported that she is suffering from mental ailment since very long period and her ailment is incurable and she will live like a patient for whole life with medication. The respondent-wife was not released/discharged from the aforesaid mental asylum till December, 2018. The family members of the respondent also not co-operating with the appellant and did not revealing the whereabout of the respondent to the appellant. The respondent-wife was not released/discharged from the aforesaid mental asylum till December, 2018. The family members of the respondent also not co-operating with the appellant and did not revealing the whereabout of the respondent to the appellant. The respondent is suffering from acute incurable mental ailment and during her attack of insanity she becomes violent and tried to harm anyone who is present in her front, even she is unable to lead normal life, it is next to impossible for the appellant to live with the respondent as joint living with the respondent is dangerous for the life and limb of the inmates of the house including appellant and her child. (viii) The cause of action for the suit arose on various dates, on 28.04.16 the date upon which fact of her insanity came to the knowledge of the appellant and still continuing. 3. On the aforesaid ground of mental disorder, the appellant- husband has prayed for a decree of dissolution of the marriage between him and the respondent-wife. 4. Notice was issued but the respondent-wife did not appear before the court in spite of proper service of Summons and hence, the case was heard ex-parte against her. Since, respondent did not appear before the court, therefore, no reconciliation could take place between the parties. 5.The main point for consideration before the learned Family Judge was whether the marriage between plaintiff (appellant herein) and defendant (respondent herein) is liable to be dissolved u/s 13(1)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of incurably unsoundness of mind of defendant.. 6. In order to prove and substantiate his case, the appellant has produced and examined the following witnesses:- (i) Roshan Pandey, the appellant himself. (ii) Shree Ram Pandey (Father of the appellant) (iii) Dharmendra Kumar Sinha. 7. Apart from above, the appellant/plaintiff has adduced the following documentary evidence, i.e., (i) Prescription of Dr. Ashok K. Prasad dated 17.01.2017; (ii) Prescriptions of Dr. Ashok K. Prasad dated 26.04.2017, 20.11.2017 and medicine bills. (iii) Carbon copy of information dated 19.01.2018. 8. In spite of service of summon, respondent/defendant has not appeared in the suit. 9. 7. Apart from above, the appellant/plaintiff has adduced the following documentary evidence, i.e., (i) Prescription of Dr. Ashok K. Prasad dated 17.01.2017; (ii) Prescriptions of Dr. Ashok K. Prasad dated 26.04.2017, 20.11.2017 and medicine bills. (iii) Carbon copy of information dated 19.01.2018. 8. In spite of service of summon, respondent/defendant has not appeared in the suit. 9. It has been submitted before the learned Family Judge that she is suffering from mental illness since long and due to her insanity, it is not possible for the appellant/plaintiff to lead conjugal life with defendant and, as such, a prayer has been made that the decree of divorce may be granted by dissolving the marriage of the parties. 10. 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 appellant/plaintiff. 11. 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: 12. Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, 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 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 of 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. 13. (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. 13. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree suffers from perversity, therefore, needs interference. Submission of behalf of the respondent-wife: 14. Mr. Manoj Tandon, 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 observed that the entire allegations levelled therein were absolutely illegal, uncalled for and as such suit has rightly been dismissed. (iii) It has also been submitted that the learned Family Court after taking into 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. 15. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that if on that pretext, the factum of mental disorder has not been found to be established, hence, the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from an error. Analysis: 16. 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. 17. Analysis: 16. 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. 17. The learned Family Judge has formulated the issues, for ready reference the same is being quoted hereinbelow: “Whether the marriage between plaintiff and defendant is liable to be dissolved u/s 13(1)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of incurably unsoundness of mind of defendant.” 18. 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 appellant/plaintiff, before the learned Family Court, wherein the element of mental disorder has been shown by the appellant-husband. 19. During the trial, three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the appellant-husband who himself has been examined as P.W.1 and exhibited some documents. PW2-Shree Ram Pandey (father of the plaintiff) and PW3-Dharmendra Kumar Sinha. PW-1 Roshan Pandey is plaintiff himself and has stated that he has filed this suit for dissolution of marriage. His marriage was solemnized with defendant on 27.04.2016 according to Hindu rites and rituals at parental house of defendant at Gaya and after marriage the defendant came to her Sasural where her behaviour was found abnormal and she used to take medicines regularly. He has further stated that when he inquired about her abnormal behaviour and medicines from his in-laws, they replied that there is no serious matter, she has some mental problem and she is under treatment of Dr. K.K. Sinha and her treatment is also going on at Patna and as per advice of doctor, she is taking medicine. He has further stated that his in-laws did not provide him the prescription of doctor by which he himself could get his wife treated. K.K. Sinha and her treatment is also going on at Patna and as per advice of doctor, she is taking medicine. He has further stated that his in-laws did not provide him the prescription of doctor by which he himself could get his wife treated. He has further stated that on 16.01.2017 suddenly the plaintiff became aggressive and violent and attacked upon him and when his parents came to intervene she also attacked upon them and anyhow they restrained her and informed her parents, on information parents of the defendant came to the parental home of the plaintiff and they took away her along with them to the house of the sister of the defendant at Booti-More, Ranchi, thereafter on 17.01.17 on his request they brought the defendant in the clinic of Dr. Ashok K. Prasad, who prescribed medicine. The respondent/defendant revealed before the doctor that she is hearing some voices of unknown person while she is sitting alone and also someone came to her and provoked her for violence. He has attached the medical prescription of Dr. Ashok K. Prasad marked Ext.1. He has further stated that that after treatment, he brought her with him but after some days she again became violent in the effect of attack of insanity and tried to harm him by knife, anyhow he saved himself then she started assaulting herself by knife then he called her parents who took her away. He has further stated that after about two months he called her for follow up as advised by Dr. Ashok K. Prasad for her further treatment, on 26.04.2017 they again visited to the clinic of the doctor who advised to keep taking medicines. He came to know for the very first time that she is pregnant, the doctor advised to keep eyes upon the defendant regularly. He proved the medical prescription and medical bills marked Ext. 2, 3, 4 to 4(j) respectively. He has further stated that she was regularly treated by Dr. Usha Rani and on 11.12.17, the respondent/defendant gave birth to a female child but she was reluctant and careless towards the child. He met with Dr. A.K. Prasad, then he suggested that child should not be left alone with the defendant, and since birth child is under the care of her grandmother. Usha Rani and on 11.12.17, the respondent/defendant gave birth to a female child but she was reluctant and careless towards the child. He met with Dr. A.K. Prasad, then he suggested that child should not be left alone with the defendant, and since birth child is under the care of her grandmother. He has further stated that during pregnancy and after birth of the child, the defendant regularly complained about hearing the voices of someone and also reported to see someone but she unable to identify the person or voices. He has further stated that she was regularly treated by Doctor A.K. Prasad but her condition was not getting improved but frequencies of attacks increased. He has further stated that in January, 2018 the defendant started insisting to go to her parental house and in due course she became violent upon him and he informed her parents and asked them to take her to their place. On 17.01.2018 the brother of the respondent/defendant came to his house and took away the defendant with him along with her belongings. He has further stated that in the month of February, 2018 on the occasion of marriage of the brother of the defendant, he went to the parental home of the defendant, and after marriage ceremony he asked the defendant to come with him but she denied to come with the plaintiff and when she took her entire belongings to her parental home, on 19.01.18, he informed about the same to the local police and he attached the carbon copy of said information marked Ext.5. He has further stated that on 26th April, 2018 he came to know that the family members of the defendant admitted the defendant in Sarvam Chikitsa Sansthan Kalka and he went to see the defendant there where doctors reported that she is suffering from mental ailment since very long period and her ailment is incurable and she was admitted in said hospital till December, 2018 thereafter he has no information about her whereabouts. He has further stated that the defendant is suffering from acute incurable mental ailment and she is unable to lead her normal life and it is impossible for him to live with the defendant, as joint living with the defendant is dangerous for the life and limb of the members of the house including him and his child. He has further stated that the defendant is suffering from acute incurable mental ailment and she is unable to lead her normal life and it is impossible for him to live with the defendant, as joint living with the defendant is dangerous for the life and limb of the members of the house including him and his child. PW-2 Shree Ram Pandey, father of plaintiff and P.W.3 Dharmendra Kumar Sinha have also supported the case of appellant/plaintiff in their examination-in-chief. 20. 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 of mental disorder and, as such, has dismissed the suit. 21. The fact about filing of suit on the ground of mental disorder is admitted one as per the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant. The appellant-husband has tried to establish the element of cruelty upon him at the hands of the respondent-wife. 22. The appellant-husband all along has alleged the issue of insanity due to which he was subjected to cruelty by his wife and in order to establish the same the evidences have been laid as has been referred hereinabove. 23. From the testimony so recorded of the appellant-husband, 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 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. 24. 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. 25. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. 24. 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. 25. 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. 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 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.” 26. In the context of the aforesaid factual aspect only seminal issue has to be decided herein that; “Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to get divorce with the defendant/respondent herein U/s 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?” 27. It is evident from order impugned that on the issue of mental illness, 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. 28. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein Section 13(1) (iii) of the Act 1955 which reads as under: “ 13. Divorce. 28. 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………” 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. 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 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. 32. 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 reasonably be expected to live with the husband. 33. 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. 34. 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 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. 35. 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. 35. 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 recognized 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. 254-56, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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…. 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. 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. 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.” 36. 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. 37. 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. 38. The illness had its fair share of problems. Can this be a reason for the appellant to abandon her and seek dissolution of marriage. 37. 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. 38. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law we have gone through the impugned order wherefrom it is evident that 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 a healthy child and admittedly at the time of recording of his evidence on 18.07.18 the respondent was staying with the petitioner, as all these show that the behaviour of the respondent was normal. Further, Ext-G to Ext-M which are marksheets and different certificates of the respondent show that she is well educated and she was teaching experience which 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. 39. 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 into 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. 40. 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 mental disorder has well been considered by the learned Family Judge. 41. 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 mental disorder against the respondent-wife. 41. 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 mental disorder against the respondent-wife. The aforesaid reason has led the learned Family Judge to dismiss the suit. 42. 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. 43. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the judgment dated 06.04.2022 and the decree dated 16.04.2022 passed in Original Suit No.551 of 2019 by the learned Family Judge need no interference and, accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. 44. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.