JUDGMENT
Gulab C. Gupta, J.
1.This is plaintiff’s appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 20-7-90 passed by District Judge, Damoh in Civil Suit No, 25-A786 dismissing the appellant’s suit for divorce under Section 13 of the said Act.
2. There is no dispute (hat the parties were married on 16-6-82 in accordance with Hindu rites at village Jabara. It also appears to be admitted that the parties are living separately from each other since 1983. The case of the appellant-plaintiff was that after marriage the respondent came to live with him for 3-4 days only during which she behaved in a manner as to create an impression (bat she was menially ill. She was treated by a doctor at Damob who advised the respondent to be taken to Jabalpur. The appellant submitted that he had taken the respondent to Jabalpur for treatment and thereafter her parents had left her at his place at Singrampur. Thereafter she remained normal for one day but thereafter started shouting and crying, She used to lock herself in. Thereafter the parents of the respondent were called and required to take the respondent with them. On this, it was submitted that the respondent is mentally deranged and has not shown any sign of improvement even after long treatment. It was further submitted that even if she was not mentally ill, her behaviour is such that it amounts to cruelty on her part. The case set up in the plaint was for divorce on the ground of mental illness and also on the ground of cruelty.
3. The respondent filed her written statement and denied the allegation. She denied that she had behaved abnormally in any manner and alleged that the behaviour of the appellant and members of his family was bad from the very beginning and used to treat her cruelly because she had not brought enough dowry. She further alleged that as long as she stayed with the appellant, she had submitted herself to sexual intercourse. She denied that there was any case for granting divorce. It appears that an application was moved on behalf of the appellant before the learned Judge to get the respondent examined by a Psychiatric and the learned District Judge has accepted the said application and directed the respondent’s examination by a Psychiatric at Medical College, Medical College, Jabalpur. Dr. P,K. Joel, Lecturer in Psychiatry, had in pursuance of the order of the District Judge, examined the respondent and opined that “As per the history given by the family, the patient had a mental illness suggestive of a phychosis in the past. But on the basis of the mental status examination done on 11-8-89 and 16-8-89, at present there is no evidence of phychosis or any other psychiatric illness.” Thereafter the evidence of the witnesses was scrutinized and on appreciation thereof, the learned District Judge held that the respondent was not suffering from any mental illness and was not guilty of any cruelty. The application was accordingly rejected. It is this Judgment which is impugned in the present appeal.
4. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that even though the respondent is not insane or mentally ill, evidence fully establishes that she is guilty of cruelty and therefore the appellant is entitled to divorce on that count. It is further submitted that the respondent has after 1983, not made any effort to re-establish the relationship and therefore a case of desertion by her is also made out. It is ultimately submitted that the relationship between the parties having broken to the extent that it is impossible to be restored, the Court should grant a decree for divorce.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent however resisted the appeal and submitted that no case of cruelty is made out. On the contrary, a case of cruelty by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife is made out.
6. As noticed earlier, the application filed by the appellant alleged that the respondent was mentally ill and was not behaving normally. In Para 2 of the application it is alleged that she was first treated by a doctor at Damoh and thereafter taken to Medical College Jabalpur. After the treatment when she joined him at Singrampur, she is alleged to have started crying, locking herself into the house and not permitting the appellant to have the sexual relationship. In Para 5 of the application it is alleged that she is so mentally deranged that she throws the house-hold goods outside, beats the appellant and runs away of the house. She does not keep her properly dressed nor does she respect the elders in the family. These allegations would therefore indicate that the case of the appellant was that the respondent was mentally sick and was behaving in a manner as to justify her being insane. This is also the evidence of Rambai (PW 1) who is said that the respondent is mentally deranged “Dimag Kharab Hai”. Ganesh Prasad (appellant) as PW 2 has also stated the same in Paras 2 and 3 of his statement. It is therefore plain that a case is sought to be made out that the respondent was insane and was behaving in a manner as an insane person. Netram (PW 4) has been called her “Pagal”.
7. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the respondent was insane or mentally deranged, though the appellant has alleged on oath that he got the respondent treated by a doctor at Damoh and Jabalpur, no evidence oral or documentary had been produced to justify the aforesaid statement. If in such a situation, the learned District Judge has found the evidence of the appellant wholly unreliable, no one should feel sorry about it. Evidence of witnesses, adduced by the appellant has been appreciated in detail in Paras 12 to 17 of the Judgment and this Court finds itself in full agreement with the conclusion of the learned District Judge. The witnesses produced ‘by the appellant are neither reliable nor natural and therefore their evidence has rightly been discarded. As stated earlier, almost all the witnesses of the appellant proved that the respondent was an insane person which evidence is contradicted by the medical examination of the respondent during trial at the instance of the appellant. Though the appellant claims to have got the respondent treated by doctors, no oral or documentary evidence about the treatment has been produced, justifying the inference that if the said evidence would have been produced, it would have been against the appellant. Under the circumstances, the evidence adduced by the appellant is wholly insufficient to establish any cruelty as understood under the Act, providing a case for decree of divorce. If evidence of the respondent is considered in the said context, it would appear that she had not done anything so as to be responsible for any act of cruelty. According 10 her, she had stayed at village Gandhipur for 6-7 days during which she had sexual relationship. She denies that she had started misbehaving in any manner. She admitted that once she had gone to Jabalpur for treatment with her parents and one Dr. Verma had treated her but no question was asked about the illness or the treatment. She denied that she had locked herself in. The story that she had been crying or refusing to permit the appellant to sexual relationship or had beaten him, are not even suggested to the respondent. Apparently therefore there is no justification for any allegation of cruelty against the respondent. No case for grant of any relief on this count is therefore made out.
8. As regards desertion, it is appellant’s own case that be had called the parents of the respondent to Singrampur and had sent her with them. This would indicate that she had not left his house herself. The argument that no one had stopped her to come back’ is not accepted in view of the subsequent conduct of the appellant. The appellant has not shown any inclination to keep her as his wife nor has he done anything to bring her back home. The social conditions in which people in this country live do not justify an expectation on the part of the wife to go to her husband’s house without being called. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no case for desertion exists and therefore the appellant is not entitled to any relief on this count also.
9. As regards total break-down of marriage, the same is not a ground for granting divorce nor any such conclusion can be reached because the parties have lived separately for long and have made efforts to adjust themselves for leading a new way of life living. It is well known that a married girl does not enjoy any social status if she has been deserted by her husband. In such a condition, simply because one lives away for long and tries to adjust, an inference of total break-down of marriage cannot be drawn. In the instant case, the respondent had shown all her willingness to come back to the appellant even during conciliation by the District Judge but the appellant bad not shown any interest in the proposal. Harsh attitude of the husband frustrating solitary efforts cannot be rewarded by granting a decree on the non-existent ground of total break-down of marriage. Such effort deserves condemnation.
10. This Court finds no substance in the appeal which fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel’ fee Rs. 500/-.