- (1.) Admittedly, the parties to the appeal were married on 16th April, 1973, and till the filing of divorce petition on 10th November, 1978, lived together only for a few days and there is no living child at the present moment. According to the husband, soon after the marriage, he and his family members discovered that the wife was of unsound mind and the record shows that she was taken to the Mental Hospital, Amritsar, where it was so diagnosed on 25th April, 1973, and was treated from time to time till early July, 1978, but was not cured. Since the husband found that the mental disorder was incurable and was getting aggravated, he filed a petition for divorce in which he succeeded before the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, who by judgment dated 5th January, 1980, granted divorce on the finding that it was proved that the wife was suffering from unsoundness of mind and mental disorder. Against the aforesaid decree, the wife has come up in appeal to this Court.
(2.) After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. The only point made out before me is that the doctor who appeared as P.W. 5 could not recognise the appellant who was present in Court, when the doctor was cross-examined. It would be useful to quote the exact words stated by the doctor in this regard :- "I cannot recognise the patient present in Court as I come across and attend many patient, daily, in routine." Therefore, the doctor has rendered sufficient explanation for not recognising the appellant in Court. Moreover, the husband had started leading his evidence earlier and the statement of the doctor and his own statement were recorded before the wife started leading evidence in defence. The husband had also stated that the wife was taken to the Mental Hospital. Amritsar, on 25th April, 1973, and was shown to the doctor there and they remained there for her treatment till the end of May, 1973. The doctor has further testified that he had treated Pritam Kaur wife of Surat Singh and daughter of Inder Singh on 25th April, 1973, 28th April, 1073, 30th April, 1973, 2nd May, 1973, 4th May, 1973, 7th May, 1973, 10th May, 1973, 31st May, 1973, 9th April, 1977, 26th April, 1978 to 5th May, 1978 and 19th June, 1978 to 3rd July, 1978. When the appellant and her father appeared for examination-in-chief, they did not state at all that they never went to Mental Hospital, Amritsar, and that the appellant was never treated for any mental disorder there by P.W. 5 or any other doctor and their statement in this regard are completely silent. This further goes to show that the treatment of the appellant of Mental Hospital, Amritsar, and by P.W. 5 was not disputed by both these persons when they appeared and made statements in examination-in-chief. However, in cross - examination, suggestion was put to both of them about appellant's treatment at Mental Hospital, Amritsar, which was denied. But that denial would not advance the case of the appellant. Further, I find that Dr. Rajinder Arora from Punjab Mental Hospital, Amritsar, who appears as P.W. 5, has produced the hospital record concerning the appellant. The fast of the documents is Exhibit P.W. 5/A which shows that Pritam Kaur wife of Surat Singh went to Mental Hospital, Amritsar, on 25th April, 1973, and it was diagnosed that she was suffering from acute Psychotic Episod and she was prescribed injections and was given electric treatment. This document further shows that she was given electric treatment on seven occasions between 25th April, 1973 and 10th May, 1973. The next document is Exhibit P.W. 5/B which shows that Pritam Kaur wife of Surat Singh and daughter of Inder Singh was taken by Inder Singh to the Mental Hospital, Amritsar, on 9th April, 1977 and the opening history sheet is thumb marked by Inder Singh, father of the appellant. When Inder Singh appeared in the witness box, he did not state that thumb - impression on Exhibit P.W. 5/B was not his.This time, she was treated from 9th April, 1977 till 13th April, 1977. There is a note of 7th May, 1977 which shows that the patient has "replaced, non-co-operative". Thereafter, the history sheet starts from 26th April, 1978 where it starts with the note"relapsed into excitement, unmanageable" and the treatment is given up to 5th May, 1978. Again, on 9th June, 1978, it is shown that there was relapse into excitement and she was treated up to 3rd July, 1978. On whole of the aforesaid record, the doctor has given the following opinion:- "According to my observations as an expect, the patient had number of relapses extending from 29-7-1973 to (sic.) 1978 and with the increase in the frequency of relapses, the chances of recovery usually get remote." The history sheet clearly shows that right from the beginning of marriage till five years thereafter, no improvement has been shown by the wife, rather the mental disease has increased as relapses in 1977 and 1978 have been more frequent and with this state of mind of the appellant, I am of the opinion that the trial Court was justified in granting divorce. The Parliament had made amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act in 1976 and the law as it stood on the filing of the petition clearly entitled the husband to obtain a decree of divorce on the facts as found in this case.
(3.) For the reasons recorded above, 1 do not find any merit in this appeal appeal and dismiss the same with no order a to costs.;