Gauhati High Court
Sumit Kr. Das vs Pinky Paul Das on 29 August, 2017
Author: Manojit Bhuyan
Bench: Manojit Bhuyan
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND
MIZORAM)
Mat. Appeal No.42 of 2014
Appellant: Dr. Sumit Kumar Das
Son of late Ramani Mohan Das
Permanent resident of Lunding Town,
Netaji Road, PO & PS Lumding,
District Nagaon (Assam)
PIN-782447, At present residing at HAMM Hospital
Hojai in the same District.
Respondent: Smti. Pinky Paul Das
Wife of Dr. Sumit Kumar Das C/o Sri Rabin Paul, Tulsi Rice Mill Singpura Mokram Block PO Farkating District Golaghat (Assam) PIN-785610 BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJIT SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN For the Appellant : Mr.GC Phukan, learned counsel For the Respondent ... Mr. LK Borah, learned counsel Date of hearing & Judgment ... 29.8.2017 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Ajit Singh, C.J.) This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed by the husband-Dr.Sumit Kumar Das- challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgement and decree dated 08/07/2014 passed by the District Judge, Jorhat, in Marriage Title Suit No. 32/2009, Page 1 of 5 dismissing his suit for a decree of divorce against his respondent-wife Pinky Paul Das.
2. The brief facts are these. Appellant married the respondent on 12/05/2007 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Golaghat and thereafter they started their married life in his quarter at Lumding where he was serving as a doctor. But soon after their marriage, appellant noticed abnormality in behaviour of respondent and saw her taking sleeping pills, remaining alone in dark rooms, forgetting to take food for herself and to serve him etc. she also used to rebuke him and his other family members as well as staff of his hospital without rhyme or reason and sometimes, used to come out of her house without proper and descent attire. When the matter was brought to notice of her relatives, they avoided the same. Finding no other alternative, he had to issue legal notice to them on 13/08/2007, but on receiving the same they came to his house and levelled false allegations against him. Once, respondent became so violent that she came to even attack him with a dao. Later on, he took respondent to one psychiatrist-Dr. H.K.Goswami- who prescribed some medicines for administration. She was diagnosed as a patient of Paranoid Schizophrenia, which is an incurable disease. So, as it was impossible to stay with her, he filed the suit for divorce in the court of District Judge, Jorhat.
3. Respondent contested the suit by filing written statement stating inter-alia that the allegations levelled against her were false and concocted. It was also stated that appellant had illicit relationship with his sister-in-law and all his family members especially that sister-in-law used to treat her with cruelty without any cause. And hence, to conceal his faults, the appellant had instituted the false suit for divorce.
4. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence. The District Judge passed the impugned judgement and decree dismissing the suit of appellant and hence this appeal by him.
Page 2 of 55. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, we are of the considered view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit. Although, appellant has deposed that respondent is suffering from psychological disorder, Dr H.K.Goswami (PW-
6) has not sufficiently corroborated that evidence. He deposed that he examined respondent on 02/03/2008 only for 2-3 minutes when she was brought to him by the appellant with his brother and sister-in-law and found her to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia as she was pre- occupied, apprehensive and had delusion of infidelity. So, he prescribed her medicines vide Exhibit -6 prescription. He asked appellant to bring her again for check-up, but she was not brought to him again for review. But, in his cross examination, Dr. HK Goswami has admitted that he examined respondent on one occasion only on 02/03/2008 and diagnosed her illness as paranoid schizophrenia vide Exhibit-7 (certificate) on that basis. He also prescribed medicines vide Exhibit -5 prescription, as per descriptions given by the appellant on 04/02/2008 and at his proxy. He categorically admitted that he did not examine her again as she was not brought for check up. He further admitted during his cross examination that he got the history from the appellant only which was mentioned in Exhibit-5 prescription.
6. We, by our order dated 15.6.2017, during the course of hearing this appeal with the consent of the appellant, directed respondent to be examined for her alleged illness by a medical board duly constituted for that purpose and the said board upon physical examination of the respondent on 05/07/2017 submitted its report on 06/07/2017, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:-
"She has no complaints. Her biological functions including sleep, appetite, nutrition and bowel are normal. There is no past history of psychiatric, medical, a surgical illness and she denies any treatment history. There is no document also regarding her treatment history.Page 3 of 5
Her father expired. Mother and brother are healthy. There is no family history of psychiatric disorder.
She is married for last ten years but they stayed together for the initial one year. There is no issue since they did not want. Menstrual cycle is normal.
Mental state examination revealed no psychopathology.
Taking into consideration the history and examination findings mentioned above, it is not possible to comment on her having psychiatric disorder and her current state shows no evidence of psychiatric disorder."
7. On careful reading of the report of the medical board, it is clear that currently she is not suffering from any psychological disorder. There is no history to that effect either. Only appellant has stated that she suffered from mental disorder for which she was examined by only one psychiatrist and that too for 2/3 minutes. But the same is also not supported by cogent evidence. The Psychiatrist examined her once as evident from the records and as per the report of the medical board, she has not been found to be suffering from any mental disorder at present. Neither there is any history reported to that effect. Nijamuddin Ali (PW-2) only deposed that he heard respondent rebuking the appellant and Abdul M. Khan (PW-3) deposed that he saw respondent roaming the streets in improper attire and also rebuking the appellant. The appellant deposed that respondent tried to kill him and their maid servant with a dao and he was always apprehensive of the respondent taking suicidal attempts. Rakhi Chakraborty (PW-4), the maid servant, also deposed that respondent used to forget to take food and also to cook and on one occasion chased her with a dao. But, the evidence of all these witnesses is not sufficient to decisively establish that respondent was suffering from any mental disorder, moreso, when the same is not supported by cogent medical evidence. The allegation levelled by both the appellant and his maid servant regarding attempts to kill them is also a general allegation without any reference to even a single incident. So, Page 4 of 5 we do not find any justifiable ground to believe the evidence of appellant. The evidence of witnesses lack credence since those are shallow and vague to come to a conclusion that the respondent treated appellant and his family members with cruelty for she was suffering from some psychological disorder. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to differ with the District Judge and to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Skd
Page 5 of 5