Punjab-Haryana High Court
Simarjeet Kaur vs Parampreet Singh on 20 January, 2009
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