FAO No. 65-M of 1999 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 65-M of 1999
Date of decision: 20.01.2009.
Simarjeet Kaur ...Appellant
Versus
Parampreet Singh ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
Present: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. G.S.Bal, Advocate for the respondent.
*****
S.D.ANAND, J.
A petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of
the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for dissolution
of marriage, was allowed by the learned Trial Judge by upholding the plea
that the appellant-wife had been proved to be suffering from mental
disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the husband cannot be
reasonably expected to live with her. That plea was subject of issue no.1
which was decided in favour of husband and against the wife. Even under
issue no.2, the plea of cruelty was upheld by the learned Trial Court in
favour of the husband and against the wife.
I have heard Mr. Ashok Singla, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. G.S.Bal, learned counsel for the respondent and have
carefully gone through the record.
In order to obtain the invalidation of the finding recorded by the
FAO No. 65-M of 1999 -2-
****
learned Trial Court under issue no.1, learned counsel for the appellant
argues that there is complete want of acceptable evidence on record to
prove that appellant-wife was, infact, suffering any mental disorder. The
plea raised in the alternative, is that the mental disorder (even if proved to
exist) was not of type which could justify the dissolution of the matrimonial
ties.). In support of the averment, learned counsel draws sustenance from
Ram Narain Gupta Vs. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta AIR 1988 Supreme
Court 2260, Champa Vs. Balwant 1985 (2) Cur. L.J. 279 and Prakash
Kumar Bachlaus Vs. Smt. Chanchal @ Jaya 2007 (4) R.C.R.(Civil) 152.
Learned counsel for the respondent-husband resisted the plea
by arguing that the appellant had been proved on record to have
undergone treatment at the hands of various experts in the field and that
her mental condition does not admit of continuation of matrimonial
relationship. Qua the judicial pronouncements relied upon on behalf of the
appellant, it was argued that those are not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case before this Court.
I have given my careful thought to the respective pleas of the
parties in the context of finding under issue no.1. I have not been
persuaded to find any fault with that finding.
Before appreciating the evidence in the context, it requires
pertinent notice that the respondent-husband has raised a precise plea
that the appellant had been suffering from mental disorder of the indicated
kind. As against it, the appellant wife had throughout denied that allegation
in toto. The plea on behalf of the appellant-wife has been found to be
unacceptable. PW-2 Dr. Anil Goyal holds a post-graduate degree in
Psychiatry. He testified on oath that he examined the appellant on
2.3.1995 and she was diagnosed as patient suffering Manic depressive
FAO No. 65-M of 1999 -3-
****
psychosis, manic type. It is also in his statement that the disease she was
suffering from is a type of mental unsoundness. In that disease, the
patient develops aggressive and violent behaviour. The appellant
remained admitted in the hospital upto 11.3.1995 was she discharged on
that date as a controlled patient but she was advised to continue the
treatment indicated in the bed head ticket. The continuation of that
treatment was ordered as she had not fully been cured. Dr. Goyal, pointed
out that the disease aforementioned is not permanently curable because
relapses re-occur with variable intervals. Inability on the part of Dr. Goyal to
identify the patient as the relevant patient is of no significance in view of the
fact that it was none else or other than the appellant himself who had
conceded her hospitalisation in the concerned hospital for the period
2.3.1995 to 11.3.1995.
Thereafter, the appellant had been under the treatment of Dr.
S.K.Tiwari of Tiwari Psychiatric Nursing Home for the period 3.11.95 to
23.12.95. Dr. Tiwari testified that he treated the appellant for duration
aforementioned and that he also treated her off and on between March,
1996 to January 18, 1997. Besides identifying the appellant who was
present in the Court on the date the statement of Dr. Tiwari was recorded,
he also averred that the appellant had been diagnosed to be a patient of
manic depressive psychosis, manic type. It is also in his testimony that
father of the appellant was also suffering from that very disease. He
testified on the basis of history of the patient indicated in the bed head
ticket which he produced as Ex. A1. He also testified that the appellant
used to beusually accompanied by her mother and that signature of Jarnail
Singh a (brother of the appellant) also available on the record as guardian
of the patient. It is also in his testimony that the appellant had a history of
FAO No. 65-M of 1999 -4-
****
1-1/2 years of illness prior to 3.11.1995. Besides it, Dr. Tiwari testified that
electro convulsant therapy was given to the appellant. Apart therefrom, Dr.
Rajesh Bali of Mohan Dai Oswal Memorial Hospital, Ludhiana produced
the bed head ticket Ex. A3 of the appellant. He does not claim to be
Psychiatrist. He only produced the bed head ticket. The Court need not
doubt the correctness of that record because the appellant herself
conceded in the course of her testimony that she had been taken to
Mohan Dai Oswal Memorial Hospital, Ludhiana on 18.4.1995. She tried to
offer an explanation that she had been forcibly taken to the hospital on
7.4.95, 21.4.95, 11.5.95, 3.1.96 and 15.5.96. Besides conceding that it is
her mother who used to accompany her at times, she also conceded that
she remained under the treatment of Dr. S.K.Tiwari from 3.11.1995 to
23.11.1995 and again from March, 1996 to January, 1997. As it is own
averment of the appellant that she had been residing at her natal house
since 28.2.1996, it is apparent that she has been undergoing treatment
from Dr. S.K.Tiwari only after she has gone over from matrimonial house to
her natal house.
It is further apparent from the medical record maintained at
Mohan Dai Oswal Memorial Hospital, Ludhiana that the appellant had been
there for check up, for the first time, on 18.2.1995. The case history shows
that she was accompanied by her husband on that visit. She had been
brought over after an altercation at home and that she had felt infuriated for
not being allowed by the mother-in-law to attend a particular wedding, that
she had threatened to kill herself and that she had locked herself up in a
room and that she had injected insecticide. It is also recorded in the case
history that she had suicidal tendency. Her mother denied all those facts in
toto. Her mother even went to the extent of denying that Jarnail Singh, a
FAO No. 65-M of 1999 -5-
****
brother of the appellant, ever accompanied the appellant to the hospital of
Dr. Tiwari at Bathinda. As already noticed, the signatures of Jarnail Singh
as guardian of the appellant, appear on the relevant record.
The fact that the appellant had locked herself up in a room
was also testified on oath by PW-7 Charna. He proceeded to testify that
the room was broken upon and it was found that wearing apparels of the
appellant smells pesticide.
Learned Trial Court appropriately noticed that Jarnail Singh,a
brother of the appellant did not enter the witness box to deny the allegation
of the husband that the appellant was suffering from mental disorder of the
averred type and that he had been accompanying the appellant to the
hospital of Dr. Tiwari at Bathinda. As already noticed, the mother of the
appellant adopted an attitude of complete denial which (attitude)is proved
on the record to be false.
At the trial, the appellant tried to raise a plea that her husband
would pass stool in the room itself and would require her to clean it up.
That plea does not require consideration inasmuchas it was not even
suggested to the respondent in the course of cross-examination. It was
also not reiterated by the appellant herself or her mother who appeared as
RW-3.
In the light of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in
holding that finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge on point of cruelty
is relate-able to the material obtaining on the file. The respondent-husband
had led affirmative evidence to prove the allegation in the relevant behalf;
whereas the mother of the appellant denied that allegation in toto but her
testimony has been proved to be false. In the light of the allegations in the
relevant behalf and also denial thereof, the production of Jarnail Singh
FAO No. 65-M of 1999 -6-
****
assumed added importance but he was examined at the trial. That finding
shall stand affirmed.
Insofar as the allegation pertaining to cruelty is concerned, it
was admitted by the appellant that she had launched a prosecution under
Section 498-A IPC against the respondent and members of her in-laws
family. In this case too, she levelled a false allegation that the respondent
would pass stool in the room and would require her to clean it up. The
appellant had, thus, been correctly held to have caused mental cruelty to
the respondent-husband. The making of false allegation in the pleadings
can also be taken to be an act cruelty. In that view of things, I have no
hesitation in affirming the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court on
point of cruelty.
In the light of the fore-going discussion, the appeal is held to
be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed.
January 20, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge