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 23.05.2023 and the decree dated 01.06.2023 passed in Original Suit No.141 of 2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro (in short, Family Judge) whereby and whereunder the petition filed under section 13(1) (i-a) (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 17.06.2017 according to Hindu Rites and Custom. After the marriage both the parties lived together as husband and wife and out of their wedlock two children were born who are aged about 3 years and 1 year respectively at the time of filing of the petition. (i) 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. (ii) It is alleged that the petitioner tried to get treated the respondent by several doctors but there was no improvement in her mental soundness. (iii) It is further alleged that one of the doctors of Sadar Hospital, Bokaro namely, Dr. P.K. Mishra has advised not to leave the respondent alone and give the medicine under supervision as she could harm herself due to her mental disorder. (iv) It is alleged that the illness of unsound mind of the respondent is genetical and, as such, their conjugal life cannot be spent. (v) It is alleged that the respondent’s aunt was also suffering of such kind of mental disorder. 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.141 of 2022, upon issuance of the notices, the respondent-wife has not appeared in the proceeding and, as such, vide order dated 13/14.11.2022 the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing. 5. 4. It needs to mention herein that in Original Suit No.141 of 2022, upon issuance of the notices, the respondent-wife has not appeared in the proceeding and, as such, vide order dated 13/14.11.2022 the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing. 5. Learned Family Judge, after institution of the said case, taking into consideration of the pleadings of the petitioner-husband has formulated the issues and has decided the lis by refusing to grant divorce to the petitioner/appellant. 6. 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: 7. Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, 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 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 the learned family Court 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. 8. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is suffering from perversity, therefore, needs interference. 9. It needs to mention here that the respondent-wife has not appeared in the present proceeding though a notice was ordered to be served upon her through the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro vide order dated 30.06.2025. 10. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is suffering from perversity, therefore, needs interference. 9. It needs to mention here that the respondent-wife has not appeared in the present proceeding though a notice was ordered to be served upon her through the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro vide order dated 30.06.2025. 10. In compliance of the said order, a report has been received from the Officer-in-charge, Chass (Mufassil) Police Station, Bokaro wherein it has been stated that the notice has been duly served upon the father of the respondent and, as such, the notice is deemed to be served upon the respondent-wife. Analysis: 11. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant- husband, gone through the impugned judgment as well as the Trial Court Records, as also the testimonies of the witnesses and the documents exhibited therein. 12. The learned Family Judge has formulated altogether five issues, for ready reference the same are being quoted hereinbelow: i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? ii) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit? iii)Whether the respondent (wife) has subjected the petitioner (husband) to mental and physical cruelty after marriage? iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of Section-13(1) (ia) of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955? v) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for? 13. First of all, the learned Family Judge has taken into consideration the issue no.(i) and (ii) i.e., whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit? The learned Family Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant-husband for deciding the issues involved in Original Suit No.141 of 2022. 14. This Court in order to appreciate the aforesaid 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 petitioner-husband before the learned Family Court, wherein the element of cruelty and mental disorder has been shown by the petitioner-husband. 15. During the trial, four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the appellant-husband who himself has been examined PW1 and exhibited some documents. 15. 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-Bipin Kumar Jha is brother, PW3-Tarun Kumar Jha is brother-in-law and PW4-Anand Kumar Mishra is the friend of the appellant. 16. The following documents have been produced by the petitioner- husband during trial which have been exhibited and marked for identification: (i) Photocopy of medical prescription dated 15.10.2017 and 19.11.2017 of the respondent of Dr. Deepak Kumar Giri which have been marked X and X/1 for identification. (ii) Photocopy of compromise paper dated 23.10.2017 which has been marked X/2 for identification. (iii) Photocopy of Clinical note of Dr Prabhat Kumar of B.G.H. in request to respondent of the case which has been marked X/3 for identification. (iv) Photocopy of discharge slip of RINPAS in regard to respondent of the case which has been marked X/4 for identification. (v) Photocopy of medical treatment of the respondent from 24.08.2021 to 01.12.2021 of Sadar Hospital, Bokaro which has been marked X/5 for identification. (vi) Photocopy of plaint of Criminal Case No. 2773 of 2021 which has been marked X/6 for identification. (vii) Photocopy of application by PW-01 addressed to Officer-in-charge, Pindrajora Police Station, Bokaro which has been marked X/7 for identification. (viii) Photocopy of Tax Invoice dated 12.11.2022 of Jay Mobile Shingar, Chas which has been marked X/8 for identification, and (ix) A Pen drive which has been marked material Exhibit-I. 17. The petitioner as P.W1 has deposed that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 17.06.2017 as per Hindu rites and custom. He has stated that the actual facts were concealed from him by the respondent and her family members for taking his consent for this marriage. He has deposed that from the very first day of marriage, he came to know that the respondent has some mental illness. On the ground of respondent's mental illness, he prayed for divorce from his wife, i.e., the respondent. He has further deposed that out of their wedlock, they have one son, namely, Vaishnav Kumar Jha, aged about 2 years and a daughter, namely, Vaishnavi Kumar Jha, aged about 03 years and both the children are living with their mother (respondent). He has deposed that for the last 2 years both the parties are living separately. At that time, he has sent his wife to her parents’ home. He has deposed that for the last 2 years both the parties are living separately. At that time, he has sent his wife to her parents’ home. He has deposed that he does the work of Munsi by profession and earning Rs.6,000-7,000/- per month. 18. PW2-Bipin Kumar Jha (Brother) has stated the same facts as stated by PW-1 (petitioner-appellant) in his examination-in-chief and further stated that the couple have two children. He has deposed that the parties are living separately for last one year. He has stated that the petitioner has filed this case for divorce from his wife, as she is mentally ill. 19. PW3-Tarun Kumar Jha is brother-in-law of the petitioner who has also stated the same facts as stated by PWs 1 and 2 in their examination-in-chief and further states that the parties have been blessed with two children. The parties are living separately for last 2½ years. 20. PW-4 Anand Kumar Mishra who is a friend of the petitioner has supported the case of the petitioner in his examination-in-chief and further stated that the respondent stayed in her matrimonial home for about three months. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. The appellant-husband has tried to establish the element of cruelty and mental disorder upon him at the hands of the respondent-wife. 24. 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. 25. 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 and concrete documentary evidence has been led to substantiate the charges of cruelty, and mental illness. 25. 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 and 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. 26. 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. 27. 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.” 28. In the context of the aforesaid factual aspect only seminal issue has to be decided herein that “Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of Section-13(1) (ia) and (iii) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955? 29. In the context of the aforesaid factual aspect only seminal issue has to be decided herein that “Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of Section-13(1) (ia) and (iii) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955? 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. 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.” 32. 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.” 33. 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. 34. 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. 34. 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”. 35. 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. 36. 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. 37. 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. 38. 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. 38. 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. 39. 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. 40. 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. 41. 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. 42. 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………” 43. 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. 44. 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. 45. 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. 46. 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. 47. 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. 47. 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. 48. 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. 49. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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…. … 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. 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. 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. 50. 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. 50. 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. 51. 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. 52. Now adverting fact of the instant case, it is crystal clear from perusal of the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant as also after going through the impugned judgment that the appellant-husband has miserably failed to establish the fact that the respondent-wife has been incurable of unsound mind and has been suffering continuously in intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with her. This finding has been recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment at paragraph Nos- 14 and 15, for ready reference the same are being quoted hereunder as: “14. On perusal of documentary evidence, I find that marked-X for identification is prescription dated 15.10.2017 of Dr Deepak Kumar Giri, Consultant Psychiatrist, Ex-Assistant Professor, RINPAS, Ranchi. He has examined Pinky Kumari (respondent) and advised to come with attendant from maternal side. She was referred to Department of Psychiatry, BGH, B.S.City. On perusal of documentary evidence, I find that marked-X for identification is prescription dated 15.10.2017 of Dr Deepak Kumar Giri, Consultant Psychiatrist, Ex-Assistant Professor, RINPAS, Ranchi. He has examined Pinky Kumari (respondent) and advised to come with attendant from maternal side. She was referred to Department of Psychiatry, BGH, B.S.City. Marked-X/1 for identification is also prescription of Dr Deepak Kumar Giri dated 19.11.2017. Pinky Kumari (respondent) was accompanied by her father. She was advised for psychological examination and referred to BGH, Bokaro. Marked-X/2 for identification is hand written agreement paper signed by Pinky Kumari (respondent) and her father viz. Raj Kumar Jha, in which he has stated that Pinky Kumari (respondent) is mentally ill and she is under treatment since before. He will pay for her treatment to the Petitioner. Marked-X/3 for identification is xerox copy of prescription generated in BGH of Pinky Kumari (respondent) dated 09.12.2017 under registration No. BGH/NE/26153/17. She was referred by Dr Deepak Kumar Giri for psychological evaluation. She was accompanied by her husband (Petitioner). She was directed to visit on 15.12.2017 with her family member for taking history. On that date, her father went to BGH and he was uncooperative in giving history, then Pinky Kumari (respondent) on 15.12.2017 was referred to CIP/RINPAS, Ranchi. Marked-X/4 is prescription issued from RINPAS of Pinky Kumari (respondent) dated 21.12.2017. She was advised some medicine. She was treated in Sadar Hospital, Bokaro as outdoor patient. Prescription is marked-X/5 for identification on record. She was advised medicine and it is also written that she should not be left alone, as she may harm herself. She was also not feeding her child. Marked-X/6 is copy of Misc. Criminal Application No. 2773 of 2021 filed by the Petitioner against Pinky Kumari (respondent) and others regarding information of her treatment. Marked-X/7 is typed written information dated 12.12.2021 given by the Petitioner to the Officer-in- Charge, Pindrajora Police Station regarding treatment of Pinky Kumari (respondent) and her behaviour. Marked-X/8 is receipt of Pen Drive, purchased from M/s. Jay Mobile Shinger, Chas. Material Exhibit-I is Pen Drive. After going through the contents of this Pen Drive, I find that one lady is sitting on the ground with her head towards wall. It appears that she is weeping and under stress. 15. This case has been filed by the Petitioner u/S. 13 1 (ia) (iii) of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 for divorce. Material Exhibit-I is Pen Drive. After going through the contents of this Pen Drive, I find that one lady is sitting on the ground with her head towards wall. It appears that she is weeping and under stress. 15. This case has been filed by the Petitioner u/S. 13 1 (ia) (iii) of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 for divorce. As per Section-13 1 (ia) (iii) of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955, there should be evidence that the respondent is mentally ill to such an extent that she is unable to recover from the same and she is not capable to maintain her day to day chores. There should be certificate issued from a registered medical practitioner, particularly by an expert Psychiatrist that such mental disease of the respondent is almost incurable and she is unable to maintain her day to life. As per Section-13 (1) (iii) (a) of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955, the marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce when the other party has been incurable of unsound mind and has been 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. Mental disorder as per this Section means, mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia. Psychopathic disorder means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub-normality of intelligence) which results in abnormality aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment. On perusal of documentary evidence, particularly the medical prescriptions of the respondent, I find that the evidence as required under Section-13 1 (ia) (iii) of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 are lacking. For this part of my findings reliance may be placed upon the case of Pankaj Mahajan vs. Dimple @ Kajal (Civil Appeal No. 8402 of 2011), arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 29641 of 2009, decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. As per settled principle of law, if a case is heard ex parte, the court should be more conscious in appreciating evidence. As per settled principle of law, if a case is heard ex parte, the court should be more conscious in appreciating evidence. Ex parte evidence of a party is required to be scrutinized by court very carefully and whatever deposed by the witness(s) shall not be accepted as a gospel truth. For this part of my finding, reliance may be placed upon the case of Md. Gulam Rabbani vs. Sabana Parween , reported in 2023 (1) JBCJ 498 (HC). Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the provision of law, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner has failed to prove the ingredients of Section- 13 1 (ia) (iii) of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955. Hence, Points of determination Nos. iii, iv & v are decided against the Petitioner.” 53. 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 Pankaj Mahajan vs. Dimple @ Kajal in Civil Appeal No. 8402 of 2011 and Arising out of S.L.P (Civil) No. 29641 of 2009. The learned Family Judge has also considered the case of Md. Gulam Rabbani vs. Sabana Parween , 2023 (1) JBCJ 498 (HC). 54. It needs to refer herein that the appellant husband in his evidence had stated that after the marriage he came to know about unsoundness of mind of his wife. He has further stated that his wife is suffering from a genetic mental disorder as her aunt (Mousi) is also suffering from the same disease. He has further stated in his evidence that the respondent is suffering from such acute mental disorder and in such a situation that their conjugal life cannot be spent. 55. But the petitioner-husband has failed to bring any cogent evidence on record in this regard. 56. 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. 57. 56. 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. 57. 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. 58. 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. 59. 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. 60. 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. 61. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the judgment dated 23.05.2023 and the decree dated 01.06.2023 passed in Original Suit No.141 of 2022 by the learned Family Judge need no interference and, accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. 62. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of. I Agree - Rajesh Kumar, J.