Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the petitioner as PW-1 and PW-2 by the Learned Trial Court and Exhibits P1 to P7 were marked. The respondent wife was examined as RW-1 and exhibits R1 series, Exhibit R1 to R3 were marked on the side of the respondent.

7. On the basis of the evidence deposed, documents marked, and the arguments put forth by the respective parties, the Learned Trial Court giving way to the evidence deposed by PW-2, one Dr. Ayyappan, who claimed to have been running a mental hospital by name and style of Thanvanthri Hospital at Tirunelveli, came to a conclusion that the respondent had suffered a mental illness, namely, Paranoid Schizophrenia, and concluded that it was the respondent who was not inclined to live together with the petitioner and she had conducted her matrimony without any love and affection and the Learned Trial Court came to a conclusion that the petitioner and the respondent did not live a happy married life and most of their marital life was led only in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 07:19:36 pm ) isolation.

17. The other ground on which the divorce has been sought for is the ground of cruelty. For the purpose of establishing the factum of cruelty, the learned Trial Court had given weightage to the evidence deposed by one Dr.Thiru.Ayyappan who deposed his evidence as PW-2. It is ridiculous as to how the learned Trial Court relied upon the evidence deposed by PW-2 without marking even a single document https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 07:19:36 pm ) which would substantiate the fact that the respondent had suffered from Paranoid Schizophrenia.

18. That apart, this Court is shocked by the way the Trial has been conducted by the learned Trial Court in admitting the evidence of PW-2 that the respondent suffered from Paranoid Schizophrenia when the said aspect was not at all pleaded by the petitioner in any portion of his petition for divorce. What the petitioner had pleaded, more particularly, in paragraph 3 of his petition for divorce, is that the respondent had left her matrimonial home permanently on 10.11.2021 to her parents house, despite the advice rendered by the elders of both sides. It is only in this point, the petitioner had pleaded in paragraph 6 of his petition for divorce that, even he had taken efforts by taking the respondent to a psychologist for the purpose of giving her a psychological counselling and the same proved futile. Nowhere in the pleadings in the petition for divorce, the petitioner had claimed that the respondent had suffered from a psychiatric condition, namely, Paranoid Schizophrenia, and that she was treated by a Psychiatrist for the said mental health condition.

22. In the absence of any medical records which would substantiate that the respondent was treated in Thanwantri Hospital, the manner in which the Trial Court had conducted the Trial by admitting the evidence of PW-2 and allowing him to depose evidence elaborating the mental health condition of the respondent to that extent that she suffered from Paranoid Schizophrenia and that too without any proper documentary evidence, I am of the considered view that, the learned Trial Court failed in dispensation of justice by painting a normal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 07:19:36 pm ) woman as a Paranoid Schizophrenic patient giving way to the society to annihilate the respondent questioning her credibility and personality posing serious threat even to her future livelihood and employment.