D.V. Sehgal, J. - (1.) Rakesh Kant appellant filed a petition for the dissolution of his marriage with Smt Salochna Devi respondent by a decree of divorce under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which was however, dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bhatinda vide judgment dated 3-8-1985. He has, therefore, filed the present first appeal from order in this Court.
(2.) The case of the appellant in the petition for the dissolution of marriage as presented before the learned District Judge was that the marriage between him and the respondent was solemnised at Goniana Mandi District Bhatinda on 8-12-1981 according to Hindu rites. He, however, asserted that no co-habitation as husband and wife between them had taken place and no child male or female had been born out of the wed-lock. He has been residing with his father in House No. 2673-B, Court Road, Bhatinda being the only son of his parents. He no doubt has one sister. He stated that his parents had performed his marriage with high hopes because of his being their only son. The marriage party returned from Goniana Mandi to Bhatinda in the afternoon with the bride. As per the tradition and biological necessity he met her newly weded wife at night and within a short time he realised that the respondent has incomplete development of mind ? and disability of mind as she was found having no sexual emotions and was even found not responding to any gestures. This behaviour of the respondent was not due to shyness which is usually an attribute of a girl from a small town. The respondent addressed him as 'Veera' (brother). He could not have co-habitation with her in view of this. In the morning on 9-12-1981 several relatives and well-wishers of the family visited the respondent as a token of respect for her as the newly wedded girl and for introduction. She did not show any respect even before the elder male members of the family and behaved as if none had come to see her. Her gestures exhibited that she had under- developed mind. In the morning on that day when she happened to attend to the call of nature she did not even bolt the door of the latrine from inside. She failed to take any precaution so as to avoid any exposure to the passers by. Whosoever visited her on that day was of the view that she had an incomplete development of mind and was suffering from some disability of mind of a kind and to the extent that he would not reasonably be expected to live with her. He stated in his petition that his own qualification is under middle class and he is not clever enough to keep a lady at home who is of incomplete development of mind. He further averred that the enquiries made by him and his father revealed that the respondent is positively a lady of incomplete development of mind and disability of mind from the very beginning and for this reason she could not get education. At the time of settling marriage her father had revealed that she had left the studies while she was in 6th class. Subsequent enquiries however, made it clear that she could not pass any class and was always promoted to higher class being a member of the fair sex. She was thus alleged to be of incurably of unsound mind, from which she was suffering right from her very birth. It was stated that it became evident to the petitioner that if the respondent is left alone in the house and some house breaker happens to come into the house she would not obstruct him even if he carried away the entire household goods. According to the petitioner she is totally a simpleton. Her mental condition was not known to him or his parents before the marriage. It was further alleged that the respondent had completely deserted him for a continuous period of two years, immediately preceding the date of the presentation of the petition.
(3.) The respondent in the written statement controverted all the allegations. She stated that while her husband had education upto middle class she had studied upto 5th class. She denied that she did not respond to the petitioners biological need on the first night after marriage. She stated that no doubt she was shy in nature having been brought up in a small town but she did co-operate and the marriage was consumated. She denied all other allegations made in the petition and stated that she possesses normal mental faculties. She also denied having deserted the petitioner.;