Punjab-Haryana High Court
Randhir Singh vs Smt. Sunita on 29 January, 2009
F.A.O.No. 190-M of 1999 -1-
***
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O.No. 190-M of 1999
Date of decision: 29.01.2009
Randhir Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sunita ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
Present: None for the [parties.
*****
S.D.ANAND, J.
The appellant-husband filed a plea for dissolution of marriage against respondent-wife on a pure and simple plea that the latter was suffering from "fits since his birth" and that her mental condition did not improve inspite of the fact that she had been under treatment for a long duration at the AIIMS, at a cost of Rs.25,000/-. Further averment is that the respondent-wife left his matrimonial company in December, 1994 against his will and is residing at her natal house ever since thereafter. It is also the plea on behalf of the appellant-husband that the respondent-wife had concealed the fact that she was already a marriage woman whose married with the first husband was subsisting. Thus, the appellant applied for the grant of divorce on a plea of concealment of the fact of a subsisting first marriage and also on account of her suffering from incurable disease of "fits since birth".
In view of the fact that exparte proceedings were ordered F.A.O.No. 190-M of 1999 -2- *** against the respondent-wife, no counter plea obviously came to be filed.
On perusal of the exparte evidence, learned Trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-husband by recording a finding that he had not been able to prove that the respondent-wife suffered from a mental disease of the type and an extent that he cannot be reasonably be expected to live with her.
None appeared on behalf of the parties to assist this Court. I have been through the file.
It is evident from the file that the appellant-husband did not examine Dr. Mayank Chawla and Dr. Monika Thomas, who were averred to have treated the respondent-wife at the AIIMS. The mere production of Ex. P1 ( case history pertaining to the respondent-wife) by PW-4 Lavkush, the Medical Record Officer, C.N.Centre, AIIMS, is not sufficient to hold that the disease indicated in the course of that record had been proved. It was for the appellant-husband to have examined the concerned Doctors. Otherwise, it were they only who could indicate the exact nature of disease the respondent-wife was suffering from. Further, it is they only who could indicate the nature and intensity of the abnormal mental state which the respondent-wife had been suffering from. There is no averment that the aforementioned two Doctors were not available for being examined at the trial. In that view of things, it has to be compulsively held that appellant- husband had not been able to prove that the respondent-wife was suffering, f continuously or intermittently, from a mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.
In the light of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge deserves F.A.O.No. 190-M of 1999 -3- *** affirmation and it is so ordered accordingly. The appeal is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed.
January 29, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge