PANKAJ MAHAJANversusDIMPLE @ KAJAL

                [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 945


                     PANKAJ MAHAJAN                             A
                               v.
                       DIMPLE @ KAJAL
               (Civil Appeal No. 8402 of 2011)

                   SEPTEMBER 30, 2011
                                                                B
     [P. SATHASIVAM AND· DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

        Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s.13 - Husband filed petition
  for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce on grounds
  of (I) 'cruelty' and (ii) incurable 'unsound mind' of wife - C
  Whether appellant-husband made out a case for divorce
· against the respondent-wife on grounds of 'cruelty' and
  'unsound mind' - Held: The appellant established and proved
  both the grounds - From the side of appellant, various doctors
  and other witnesses were examined to prove that respondent D
  was suffering from mental disorder - All the four doctors/ .
  Psychiatrists who treated the respondent - PW-1, PW-2, PW-·
  3 and PW-7, and prescribed medicines also expressed the
  view that it was "incurable" - Even respondent and her father
  themselves admitted in their cross-examination that E
 respondent took treatment from the said Doctors for mental
 illness - It was proved beyond doubt that respondent was
 suffering. from mental disorder! Schizophrenia and the
 appellant was not reasonably expected to live With her - No
 doubt, after marriage, the couple was blessed with a female F
 child and at present she is studying in a school, however,
 whenever the child was with respondent, the respondent was
 not taking appropriate care - Many a times the respondent
 casually threw the child facing opposite to her - PW-5,
 landlord of the parties, highlighted several instances when the G
 respondent used to quarrel with appellant and he had to face
 humiliation in front of others because of her behavior - The
 appellant placed adequate materials to show that the
 respondent use<.1 to give repeated threats to commit suicide
 and once even tried to commit suicide by jumping from the H
                             945
    946   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A terrace - The acts and conduct of the respondent were such
  as to cause pain, agony and suffering to the appellant which
  amounted to cruelty in matrimonial law - Further, appellant
  and respondent were living separately for the last more than
  nine years and there is no possibility to unite them - Divorce
B petition filed by appellant accordingly allowed.

       Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s. 13 - Dissolution of
  marriage by decree of divorce on ground of 'unsound mind'
  - Held: The onus of proving that the other spouse is incurably
  of unsound mind or is suffering from mental disorder lies on
C the party alleging it - It must be proved by cogent and clear
  evidence.

       Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s. 13 - Dissolution of
  marriage by decree of divorce on ground of 'cruelty' -
D Repeated threats to commit suicide - Held: Cruelty postulates
  treatment of a spouse with such cruelty as to create
  reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful
  or injurious for him to live with the· other party - Giving
  repeated threats to commit suicide amounts to cruelty.
E
          The appellant-husband filed petition under Section
  13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of
  marriage by a decree of divorce on grounds of (i) 'cruelty'
  and (ii) incur.able 'unsound mind' of the respondent-wife.
F The District Court accepted the claim of cruelty and
  granted decree of divorce in favour of the appellant-
  husband. Aggrieved, the respondent-wife filed a!'.)peal
  before the High Court. The High Court completely
  rejected the claim of divorce even under unsound mind
  and set aside tho judgment and decree passed by the
G triis I court.
      The qw:istivn which arose for consideration in the
  in~tant appeal· was whether the appellant-husb&:1nd ·had
  made out a case for divorce on grounds of 'cruelty' and
H 'unsound mind'.
      PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL                 947

    Allowing the appeal, the Court                            A
    HELD:1.1. Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Ac:t, 1955
specifies the grounds on which a decree of divorce may
be obtained by either party to the marriage. The onus of
proving that the other spouse is incurably of unsound
                                                              8
mind or is suffering from mental disorder lies on the party
alleging it. It must be proved by cogent and clear
evidence. [Para 6] [956-B]

    1.2. In the case on hand, since the appellant-husband
approached the District Court for a decree of divorce, the    C
onus was on him to prove the grounds put-forth by him.
[Para 7] (956-C]

      2.1. From the materials placed on record, it is clear
that the appellant-husband has brought cogent materials 0
on record to show that the respondent-wife is suffering
from mental disorder, i.e., Schizophrenia. From the side
of the appellant-husband, various doctors and other
witnesses were examined to prove that the respondent-
wife was suffering from mental disorder. All the four E
doctors/Psychiatrists who treated the respondent-wife-
PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-7-, prescribed medicines and
also expressed the view that it is "incurable". Even the
respondent-wife and her father themselves admitted in
their cross-examination that the respondent had taken
                                                            F
treatment from the said Doctors for mental illness. Thus,
it is proved beyond doubt that the respondent-wife is
suffering from mental disorder/ Schizophrenia and it is
not reasonably expected to live with her and the
appellant-husband has made out a case for a decree of
divorce and the decree should have been granted in G
favour of the appellant-husband and against the
respondent-wife. [Para 18] [964-E-H; 965-A]
    2.2. The High Court negatived the plea of the
appellant-husband under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act on      H
   948   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A the ground that the appellant-husband has merely
  reproduced the wordings of the Section without applying
  the same to the facts of the case and that it was not
  pleaded that it was a case of continuous or intermittent
  disorder. ·The aforesaid reasoning of the High Court is
B completely erroneous and contrary to the material on
  record. [Para 19] [956-8]

        2.3. The appellant-husband had specifically pleaded
  before the High Court that the respondent-wife was
  suffering from Schizophrenia, which is a kind of mental
C disorder and he had pointed out specific incidents to
  show that the respondent-wife was not of sound mind.
  The averments made in the divorce petition filed by the
  appellant make it clear that the appellant-husband, after
  narrating specific incidents of abnormal behaviour of the
D respondent-wife had duly pleaded that she was suffering
  continuously/ intermittently from 'incurable' mental
  disorder of such a nature that he cannot be reasonably
  expected to live with her. It was also stated therein that
  due to her unsoundness, the respondent-wife was not
E able to lead a married life and thus the appellant-
  husband was entitled to a decree of divorce. Apart from
  this, the appellant-husband had brought cogent evidence
  on record to show that the respondent-wife was not in a
  fit state of mind whereas the respondent-wife could not
F lead any acceptable evidence to rebut the same. The
  respondent and her father admitted her mental illness and
  periodic treatment from the doctors. No doubt, it was
  pointed out that after the marriage, the couple was
  blessed with a female child and at present she is
G studying in a school and there is no dispute about the
  same, however, it is clear from the respondent's evidence
  that from the date of delivery of child, the child was
  pericdically taken care of by .her grand-parents. Also
  whenever the child was with respondent-wife, she (the
H mother) was not taking appropriate care which is clear
        PANKAJ. MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL              949

 from the evidence of the appellant-husband (PW-4) and       A
 their landlord, PW-5. One incident which was referred to
 was that many a times the respondent-wife casually threw
 the child facing opposite to her. Under these
 circumstances, the High Court ought to have accepted
 the case of the appellant-husband. [Para 20] [965-C; 967-   8
 A-F]
        3.1. The High Court rejected the plea of the appellant-
   husband regarding cruelty on the ground that apart from
   his statement, theµ' is no evidence to prove the same and
   PW-5, being hearsay, his evidence was not reliable. As C
   far as PW-5 is concerned, the High Court only referred
   to his cross-examination without even adverting to the
   examination-in-chief wherein he had categorically stated
   about cruelty meted out by respondent-wife to the
  appellant-husband. It is clear from the evidence of PW-5 D
  that the respondent-wife was .not of sound mind and she
  did not look after the household work rather she used to
  give threats to commit suicide. She did not even make
  food for the appellant-husband and he had to arrange the
  same from outside. Apart from this, she used to E
  embarrass the appellant-husband before his landlord's
  family and because of her weird behaviour and threats
  to commit suicide, the appellant-husband was forced to
  leave the rented accommodation. The landlord, PW-5 also
  highlighted several instances when the respondent-wife F
  used to quarrel with her husband and he had to face
  humiliation in front of others because of her behaviour.
  Inasmuch as PW-5 was living in the same house on the
  ground floor and the appellant-husband and the
  respondent-wife were living on the first floor, the said G
  witness being the eye-witness to the cruelty meted out
  by the respondent-wife to the appellant-husband, as he
  had himself seen the behaviour and the activities. of the
' respondent-wife including humiliation and threats of
  committing suicide, cannot be thrown out. Under those H
    950   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A circumstances, the observation of the High Court that the
  statement of PW-5 is only hearsay is liable to be rejected.
  [Para 21) [967-G-H; 968-A; 969-C-F]
        3.2. In addition to the evidence, the appellant-
  husband had categorically pleaded in his petition for
B divorce about the cruelty meted out to him. He narrated
  the incidents when she used to give threats to commit
  suicide and had even tried to commit suicide by jumping
  from the terrace and also pushed him from the staircase
  resulting in fracture in his right forearm. Due to her mental
C disorder, on various occasions, she even slapped him.
  She was also most disrespectful to his parents and she
  even forced him to live separately from them. His
  evidence in the form of an affidavit filed before the trial
  Court is available in the paper book wherein he narrated
D all the sufferings meted out by her. All the details in the
  form of assertion in the affidavit clearly show that the
  appellant-husband faced cruelty at the hands of the
  respondent on several occasions. [Para 22) [969-G-H;
  970-A; 972-H; 973-A]
E      3.3. It is well settled that giving repeated threats to
  commit suicide amounts to cruelty. When such a thing
  is repeated in the form of sign or gesture, no spouse can
  live peacefully. In the case on hand, the appellant-
  husband placed adequate materials to show that the
F respondent-wife used to give repeated threats to commit
  suicide and once even tried to commit suicide by
  jumping from the terrace. Cruetty postulates treatment of
  a spouse with such cruelty as to create reasonable
  apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful or
G injurious for him to live with the other party. The acts of
  the respondent-wife are of such quality or magnitude and
  consequence as to cause pain, agony and suffering to
  the appellant-husband which amounted to cruelty in
  matrimonial law. From the pleadings and evidence, the
H following instances of cruelty are specifically pleaded
      PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL                  951

and stated. They are: i.) Giving repeated threats to commit A
suicide and even trying to commit suicide on one
occasion by jumping from the terrace; ii) Pushing the
appellant from the staircase resulting into fracture of his
right forearm; iii). Slapping the appellant and assaulting
him; iv) Misbehavin~ with the colleagues and relatives of B
the appellant causing humiliation and embarrassment to
him; v) Not attending to household chores and not even
making food for the appellant, leaving him to fend for
himself; vi) Not taking care of the baby; vii) Insulting the
parents of the appellant and misbehaving with them; viii) c
Forcing the appellant to live separately from his parents;
ix) Causing nuisance to the landlord's family of the
appellant, causing the said landlord to force the appellant
to vacate the premises; x) Repeated fits of insanity,
abnormal behaviour causing great mental tension to the 0
appellant; xi) always quarreling with the appellant and
abusing him; xii) Always behaving in an abnormal
manner and doing weird acts causing great mental
cruelty to the appellant. [Para 23) [973-B-H; 974-A-D]

    3.4. The pleadings and evidence of both the parties E
clearly show the conduct of the respondent-wife towards
the appellant-husband. It cannot be concluded that the
appellant-husband has not made out a case of cruelty at
the hands of the respondent-wife. The appellant-husband
had placed ample evidence on record that the F
respondent-wife is suffering from "mental disorder" and
due to her acts and conduct, she caused grave mental
cruelty to him and it is not possible for the parties to live
with each other, therefore, a decree of divorce deserves
to be granted in favour of the appellant-husband. In G
addition to the same, both appellant-husband and the
respondent-wife are living separately for the last more
than nine years. There is no possibility to unite the chain
of marital life between the appellant-husband and the
respondent-wife. [Para 24] [97 4-E-H]                         H
    952     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A        4. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the
    case, it is clear that the impugned order of the High Court
    resulted in grave miscarriage of justice to the appellant-
    husband, more particularly, the High Court failed to
    consider the relevant material aspects from the pleadings
s   and the evidence, the ultimate cof)clusion cannot be
    sustained. The appellant-husband established and
    proved both grounds in terms of Section 13 of the Act.
    The divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband
    stands accepted and a decree of divorce is hereby
c   passed dissolving the marriage of the appellant with the
    respondent. The appellant-husband is directed to pay an
    amount of Rs. 2 (Two) lakhs as alimony to the
    respondent-wife in two equal instalments within a period
    of three months and to deposit Rs. 3 (Three) lakhs in the
    name of his daughter in the shape of three FDRs in a
0
    nearest nationalised bank in three equal instalments
    commencing from January, 2012 ending with June, 2012.
    On attaining majority, the daughter is permitted to
    withdraw the amount. Till such period, the respondent-
E   wife is permitted to withdraw accrued interest once in
    three months directly from the bank from the said deposit
    for the benefit and welfare of their daughter. [Para 25)
    [975-A-E]

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
F   8402 of 2011.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2009 of the
    High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No.
    123-M of 2006.
G         Nidesh Gupta, Tarun Gupta, S. Janani for the Appellant.

          B.K. Satija and H.D. Talwani for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
       PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL                      953


     P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.                             A

    2. This appeal is directed against the fiQal judgment and
order dated 06.08.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab
& Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. M-123 of 2006 whereby
the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent            8
herein and set aside the judgment and decree dated
29.04.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge(Ad-hoc)-
cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Ropar filed under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marr-iage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act').

     3. Brief facts:                                                 C

      (a) The marriage of Pankaj Mahajan-appellant husband
and Dimple @ Kajal, respondent-wife, was solemnized on
02.10.2000 at Amritsar. After the marriage, the parties
cohabited and resided together as husband and wife at                o
Amritsar in the parents' house of the appellant-husband, but
later on shifted to a rented house in Tilak Nagar, Shivala Road,
Amritsar. On 11.07.2001, a female child was born, who is now
in the custody of the respondent-wife.

     (b) After the marriage, the appellant-husband found that the    E
respondent-wife was acting in very abnormal manner, as she
used to abruptly get very aggressive, hostile and suspicious in
nature. In a fit of anger, she used to give threats that she would
bring an end to her life by committing suicide and involve the
appellant-husband and his family members in a criminal case,         F
unless she was provided a separate residence. On one
occasion, she attempted to commit suicide by jun:iping from the
terrace but was saved because of timely intervention of the
appellant-husband.
                                                                  G
    (c) Succumbing to the pressure of the respondent-wife, the
appellant-husband shifted to a rented house on 28.11.2001 at
a monthly rent of Rs.3,200/- and started living with her, but the
behaviour of the respondent-wife became more aggressive'
and she repeated threats of suicide even in the rented house. H
    954   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A On enquiry, the appellant-husband came to know that the
  respondent-wife was suffering from acute mental depression
  coupled with schizophrenia even prior to the marriage and was
  taking treatment for the same. The appellant-husband hoping
  that the respondent-wife would become alright took her to
B various doctors, but her mental condition did not improve and
  she became more and more violent and aggressive. She
  insulted and humiliated the appellant-husband in front of his
  colleagues and relatives several times and even on one
  occasion she pushed the appellant-husband from the staircase
c causing fracture in his right forearm.

        (d) On 23.03.2002, the appellant-husband wrote a letter to
  his mother-in-law stating therein that the respondent-wife was
  repeatedly threatening to commit suicide and even on
  19.04.2002, he wrote a letter to the SSP, Amritsar regarding
D the factum of repeated threats to commit suicide given by the
  respondent-wife. On 24.05.2002, the appellant-husband filed a
  petition under Section 13 of the Act in the District Court at
  Amritsar for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. By
  order dated 29.04.2006, the Additional District Judge, Ropar,
E granted a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant-husband.

       (e) Being aggrieved by the above-said order, the
  respondent-wife filed FAO No. M-123 of 2006 before the High
  Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court, by
F order dated 06.08.2009, allowed the appeal filed by the
  respondent-wife and set aside the judgment and decree dated
  29.04.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge(Ad-hoc)-
  cum- Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Ropar. Aggrieved by
  the said decision, the appellant-husband has preferred this
G appeal before this Court by way of special leave petition.

          4. Heard Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel for
    the appellant-husband and Mr. B.K. Satija, learned counsel for
    the· respondent-wife.

H
       PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL                    955
               [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

Discussion:                                                       A

     5. It is not in dispute that the petition for dissolution of
marriage for granting a decree of divorce under Section 13 of
the Act came to be filed by the appellant-husband before the
District Court at Amritsar. The marriage was solemnized
                                                                  8
between the parties at Amritsar on 02.10.2000. Since the case
of the appellant-husband as well as the respondent-wife has
already been narrated, there is no need to traverse the same
once again. The fact remains that it was the appellant-husband
who approached the court for a decree of divorce on the
grounds of 'cruelty' and 'unsound mind' of the respondent-wife C
which is incurable, hence we have to see whether the appellant-
husband has made out a case for divorce on these grounds.

    6. Section 13 of the Act, which is useful for our present
purpose, reads as under:-                                         D

    "13. Divorce (1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before
    or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition
    presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved
    by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party- E

    (i) xxx

    (i-a) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated
    the petitioner with cruelty; or
                                                                  F
    (ib) xxx

    (ii) xxx

    (iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been
    suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder G
    of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner
    cannot reasonably be. expected to live with the
    respondent.

    Explanation .-In this clause,-
                                                                  H
    956     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A         (a) the expression "mental disorder" means mental illness,
          arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic
          disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and
          includes schizophrenia; .... ."

    Section 13 specifies the grounds on which a decree of divorce
8
    may be obtained by either party to the marriage. The onus of
    proving that the other spouse is incurably of unsound mind or
    is suffering from mental disorder lies on the party alleging it. It
    must be proved by cogent and clear evidence.

C        7. In the case on hand, since the appellant-husband has
    approached the District Court for a decree of divorce, the onus
    is on him to prove the grounds put-forth by him. As regards the
    ground alleged by the appellant-husband for a decree of
    divorce i.e. the respondent-wife is suffering from unsound mind/
D · mental disorder/schizophrenia, apart from his own evidence as
    PW-4, various Doctors, who treated her and other witnesses
    were also examined. From the side of the appellant-husband,
    Dr. Paramjit Singh (PW-1), Dr. Ravinder Mohan Sharma (PW-
    2), Dr. Virendra Mohan (PW-3) and Dr. Gurpreet lnder Singh
E Miglani (PW-7), who had given treatment to the respondent-wife
    for mental disorder, were examined.

        8. Dr. Paramjit Singh (PW-1 ), Professor and Head
    Psychiatry Department, Medical College, Amritsar in his
    evidence stated as follows:-
F
          "The respondent remained admitted in my Department at
          Amritsar from 17.12.2001to28.12.2001. This disease is
          Bipolar Affective Disorder. I treated her during this period.
          She was admitted in Emergency because her disease
G         was in quite serious stage. In this disease, the patient can
          commit suicide. When she came, she was aggressive and
          irritable. If the proper treatment is not yiven to the
          respondent then her aggressive nature can be prolonged.·
          The respondent Kajal was treated by me by giving electric
H         shock for four times during her stay in the ward M.R.. I. i.e.
       PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL                      957
               [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

     Magnetic Resonance Imaging. MRI has got no concern             A
     with the dise,ase with which the respondent was suffering.
     This disease is treatable but not curable. I have seen the
     certificate issued by me which is Ex:P1. It bears my
     signatures and is correct Ex. P2 i.e. Discharge Certificate.
     I have brought the original record of the Department           B
    concerning the respondent both in-door as well as out-
    door. A certified copy of the same attested by me is Ex.
    P3. These are correct according to the original record
    brought by me today in the court. The respondent was
    brought to the Hospital for her admission and treatment by      c
    Sh. S.K. Mahajan son of later Sh. Gian Chand and Pankaj
    Mahajan. I have seen the receipts today in the court which
    relate to our hospital and the same are Ex. P4 to Ex. P7
    and Ex. P8 is the receipt regarding room rent of our
    Hospital. On 08.10.2002, father of the respondent had           D
    brought her to our hospital and she was treated by me as
    well as other doctors of department of our hospital from
    08.10.2002. After the discharge from the Hospital, the
    respondent was brought to our hospital for treatment by her
    father on 22.01.2002, 02.02.2002, 09.02.2002,
    15.04.2002, 08.08.2002, 08.10.2002, 21.11.2002,
                                                                    E
    05.02.2003 and 20.06.2003."

                                        (Emphasis supplied)

 In cross-examination, he admitted that when the respondent-        F
wife was discharged from the hospital, she was not perfectly
alright, however, she was able to return home. He further
admitted that in the original record of Ex. P3 some entries were
made by him and some by junior doctors, who worked with him.
All the entries made therein are correct. He also stated that       G
during the treatment, he did not notice abnormal behaviour of
the respondent-wife.

     9. Dr. Ravinder Mohan Sharma (PW-2), Senior Medical
Officer, Punjab Mental Hospital, Amritsar, stated as under:
                                                                    H
    958    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         "According to file No. 57914 the patient was examined in
          the out door by Dr. Charu Chawla, Senior Resident whose
          handwriting I identified as she has been working with me.
          After examining the patient and recording the history, she
          has diagnosed her to be a case of Bipolar Affective
B         Disorder with which I agreed and advised her treatment
          in my own hand. There is another entry dated 16.01.2002
          again in my own hand where I had advised her treatment.
          The second file No. 58803 is in the hand of Dr. Purnima
          Singh, who after examining presented the case to Dr.
c         Manjit Singh who made a diagnosis of depressive episode
          and advised her medical treatment dated 21.02.2002. I
          identified the handwriting of Dr. Purnima Singh and Dr.
          Manjit Singh as I had been working with them. I have seen
          the original outdoor ticket of respondent and the same are
D         Ex. P11 and Ex. P12. As per the history recorded in file
          No. 58803, there is a mention of suicide ideas and threats
          and it is recorded that she had attempted suicide once.
          As per the record, hers is a history of abusive and irritable
          behaviour. On 16.01.2002 she was advised injection by
          me because she was irritable and restless. It is not a
E
          simple yes or no answer to the question whether the
          disease is curable or not. It is an episodic illness which
          patient getting episodes of mental illness and with
          treatment in between she can remain normal. The intensity
          and frequency of these episodes is highly unpredictable
F
          and varies from patient to patient. Generally, the frequency
          increases with every episode. The disease of the
          respondent is treatable but cannot be definitely say
          curable. MRI has got nothing to do with this disease of
          respondent."
G
                                              (Emphasis supplied)

    In cross-examination, he reaffirmed what he had stated in
    examination-in-chief.
H
     PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL                    959
             [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

    10. Dr. Virendra Mohan (PW-3), M.D. Psychiatry,            A
Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. stated as follows:-

    "Patient Dimple, aged 23 years, female (single) a/o Shri
     Prem Kumar, village Shivaji Nagar, House No. 810/11
     Ludhiana was admitted on 22.05.1998 and discharged on B
    06.b6.1998. She was suffereing from mental disorder at
    that time. She was diagnosed C'S Chronic Paramoid
    Schizophrenia for the last four years. She got admitted by
    her father Shri Prem Kumar, and the history of the patient
    was described to me. I have recorded the history as told   c
    by her father. He told that she was having mental
    symptoms for the last 4 to 5 years. The sleep was less.
    She was having acute psychotic symptoms at the time of
    admission. I have mentioned the history of the patient in
   the register which I have brought today, and the attested D
    true copy of the same is Ex.PW3/As she was admitted in-
   door because she showed acute mental symptoms. She
    had paranoid symptoms. She was suicidal and also she
   could harm herself and others. The patient was restless
   and she could harm and attack others as well, and could
   cause injury. It has been recorded in the history of the E
   patient that her Nana had been suffering from the mental
   disease. There was no test for diagnosing this disease
   from which the respondent was suffering. Only the history
   tells about the earlier condition of the patient. I cannot say
   if the disease for which the respondent was suffering is F
   definitely curable or not. This disease is known for
   relapses. There is no direct relationship in the stress or
   strain with the disease. This disease is not related to nose
   or throat. There can be no finding in MRI regarding this
   kind of disease. There may be suicidal tendency of such G
   type of person suffering from this disease. The
   respondent was admitted in the hospital due to abnormal
   behaviour. I had observed that she passed stool -in her
   cloth, she has visual hallucination. During her admission,
   she also stated that she wanted to marry her cousin and H
    960     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         she was also laughing herself. She was admitted twice in
          my mental Hospital at Dharampur. I got signatures of father
          of the respondent in my register, whenever she got
          admitted by her father in my hospital and the register bears
          the signatures of her father. Second time, she was
B         admitted by her father Prem Kumar on 28.09.1999 and
          was discharged on 05.10.1999. That time she was more
          excited and more elated and at that time the diagnosis
          was quarry mania. This time she did not have any paranoid
          symptoms. Her address was recorded this time 810/11
c         Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana. Usually, if patient remains
          symptoms free for two years they can get married, but
          other partner should know the problem so that the
          treatment should be continued."

                                              (Emphasis supplied)
D
  In cross-examination, PW-3 stated that during the treatment in
  his hospital, the respondent-wife responded very well to the
  treatment. No suicidal action was taken by her during the
  treatment in his hospital for the second time. He also stated
E that if the patient remained symptoms free then she is
  manageable. According to him, as per the records, the
  respondent-wife was manageable.

      11. Dr. Gurpreet lnder Singh Miglani (PW-7), Associate
  Professor and lncharge, Department of Psychiatry, Guru Ram
F Dass Medical Hospital, Amritsar stated as under:-

          "! remained posted in Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib Charitable
          Hospital at Ludhiana from 1995 to 1998. I was working
          there as Consultant for Psychiatry. I have seen the original
G         file produced in the Court today relating to Dimple d/o
          Prem Kumar r/o Shastri Nagar, H.No. 257-A Ludhiana.
          Dimple was got admitted in our Hospital on 15.06.1996
          at 06:50 a.m. by her father Prem Kumar in the Emergency
          Ward. She was suffering from a very violent behaviour
H         and she has to be given Electric Convulsive Therapy
       PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL                       961
               [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

     (ECT) on the same day in the operation theater.                 A
     Subsequently also five ECTs were given as her violence
     was not being controlled along with other anti psychotic
     drugs. A diagnosis of F 2004 was made according to ICD
     10 at the time of discharge on 15.07.1996. She was
     labeled as suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia with           B
     incomplete remission and discharged on stable
     condition. Due consent for ECTs in operation theater
     under general anesthesia were taken from the father of the
     patient."

                                          (Emphasis supplied)        C
In cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say exactly
about the disease of the respondent-wife whether it can be
treatable or not at this stage. He further stated that the disease
of the respondent can be cured or it can aggravate after a lapse     D
of time.

     12. It is relevant to point out that the documents produced
from the side of the respondent-wife, particularly, medical report
issued by Dr. Harjeet Singh, Consultant Psychiatrist, RW-4           E
shows as:

     "Impression: Bipolar Affective (Mood) Disorder, currently
     in remission."

    "Advice: marital therapy for the .couple. Follow up as and       F
    when required."

The said Report has been marked as Annexure R10. A fair
typed copy of relevant extract of Ex. P3 shows that "Mood
according to patient is euthenics." The Annexure along with the      G
counter affidavit of the respondent-wife filed in this Court,
particularly, Certificate issued by the Doctor refers "suicide
threats made by her on some occasions".

    13. The appellant-husband was examined as PW-4.
According to him, the marriage with respondent-wife was              H
    962   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A solemnized on 02.10.2000 and it was an arranged marriage.
  After marriage, both of them went to Vaishno Devi, however,
  in the meanwhile he noticed some strange facial expressions
  and behaviour of his wife-Dimple. He subsequently came to
  know that she was suffering from some serious disease. She
B used to become annoyed and angry on petty issues, abuse and
  fight with him, flaunt her father's status and influence, comb her
  hair throughout the day, cry like children, apply brakes of a
  moving vehicle, call strangers in the house and offer them tea.
  Even once she called a washerman in the house and gave him
c Rs. 200/- unnecessarily and when he said 'thanks' she
  immediately snatched the money from his hands and slapped
  him for no reason and, thereafter, she abused him and pushed
  him out of the house. According to him, such things had
  become her everyday chores. She used to wake up very late
D in the morning. Whenever his mother and sister called her to
  join them, she started abusing and insulting them. She used to
  call his mother stupid and his sister as wretched. One day,
  when his friend Sumit came to their house, she insulted him
  when he was sitting in the drawing room on the ground floor
E and when the appellant-husband was coming down to join him,
  she pushed him from stairs and started laughing, as a result,
  he fell down and got fractured. She was in the habit of listening
  to phone calls of Madan Lal, the landlord (PW-5) and used to
  abuse his relatives over phone. One day, when the landlord
  (PW-5) told them that he is fed up with the appellant and his
F family and asked to leave· the house immediately thereupon,
  the respondent-Dimple slapped him on his face for which he
  had to apologise him for her acts. Even, one day, she threw
  the infant child towards him.

G      14. In order to show that his marriage was an arranged
  one he explained that he knows the father of the respondent-
  wife prior to the marriage as he was his Boss in Life Insurance
  Corporation office, Amritsar Division. He worked under him for
  a period of 6-8 months. He further explained that the behaviour
H of the respondent-wife came to his notice after 1% months'
       PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL                       963
               [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
 after their marriage and he immediately disclosed this fact to      A
.her father. The treatment was given to the respondent-wife for
 the first time on 06.09.2001 for her abnormal behaviour.

       15. Another important witness examined on the side of the
appellant-husband is Madan Lal (PW-5), the landlord, who             8
rented his house to them. In his evidence, PW-5 C:;posed that
he is resident of H.No. 62, Tilak Nagar, Amritsar and his wife
is also residing with him. He rented out a portion of the building
to the appellant-husband and respondent-wife which was on the
first floor. He and his wife were residing on the ground floor.      C
According to PW-5, the respondent-wife usually remained
sitting in the portion of his house during the day time where he
is.residing with his family unless and until the appellant-husband
return home. She used to sit with his daughter and daughter-
in-law and remained talking with them. She also quarrels with
his wife and daughter due to the use of telephone. He explained      D
that his daughter-in-law told him that the respondent-wife often
threatens to commit suicide. The High Court, without looking
into the evidence of Madan Lal (PW-5), erroneously concluded
that his evidence was of n.o help. On the other hand, PW-5 has
specifically narrated the behaviour of the respondent with his       E
wife, daughter-in-law and the agony he himself had undergone
and highlighted all those details in the Court.

       16. Apart from the above oral evidence, the appellant-
 husband has also pressed into service a copy of an affidavit F
 of the respondent-wife i.e. Annexure-R3. In the said affidavit,
 the respondent-wife has stated that she threatened to commit
 suicide so many times to her in-laws and she even tried to
 commit suicide by way of jumping from the roof of the house
 on the intervening night of 19-20.09.2001 but could noi succeed G
 due to timely intervention of her husband. She also stated that
 she realized that her attempt to commit suicide was at the
·instance of her parents and now she is repentant for her actions
 for threatening to commit suicide and apologise for the same
 with the assurance not to repeat such type of actions in future.
                                                                  H
    964   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A      17. Though the trial Court accepted the claim of cruelty,
  the High Court reversed the said conclusion and completely
  rejected the claim of divorce even under unsound mind. In the
  impugned judgment, though the High Court has adverted to the
  evidence of four doctors, without proper appreciation, arrived
B at an erroneous conclusion that mere evidence of mental illness
  is not sufficient to seek decree for divorce. In spite of abundant
  materials, unfortunately, the High Court has erroneously
  concluded that only wordings of Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act
  were merely reproduced without adverting to the facts of the
c case. According to the High Court, necessary materials were
  not pleaded. We are unable to accept the said conclusion.
  Without proper discussion and adequate reasons, the High
  Court rejected the evidence of the appellant-husband as PW-
  4. A perusal of his evidence clearly show the agony and
  treatment meted out immediately after the marriage due to
0
  mental disorder/unsound mind of the respondent-wife.

       18. From the materials placed on record, we are satisfied
  that the appellant-husband has brought cogent materials on
  record to show that the respondent-wife is suffering from mental
E disorder, i.e., Schizophrenia. From the side of the appellant-
  husband, various doctors and other witnesses were examined
  to prove that the respondent-wife was suffering from mental
  disorder. We have already extensively quoted the statements
  of Dr. Paramjit Singh (PW-1), Dr. Ravinder Mohan Sharma
F (PW-2), Dr. Virendra Mohan (PW-3) and Dr. Gurpreet lnder
  Singh Miglani (PW-7) - all the four doctors/Psychiatrists who
  treated the respondent-wife, prescribed medicines and also
  expressed the view that it is "incurable". Even the respondent-
  wife and her father themselves admitted in their cross-
G examination that the respondent had taken treatment from the
  said Doctors for mental illness. Thus, it is proved beyond doubt
  that the respondent-wife is suffering from mental disorder/
  Schizophrenia and it is not reasonably expected to live with her
  and the appellant-husband has made out a case for a decree
H
       PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL                   · '.   965
               [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

of divorce and the decree should have been granted in favour           A
of the appellant-husband and against the respondent-wife.

     19. The High Court, by impugned order, negatived the plea
of the appellant-husband under Section 13(1 )(iii) of the Act on
the ground that the appellant-husband has merely reproduced
                                                                       8
the wordings of the Section without applying the same to the
facts of the case and that it was not pleaded that it was a case
of continuous or intermittent disorder. The aforesaid reasoning
of the High Court is completely erroneous qnd contrary to the
material on record which we have already demonstrated.
                                                                       c
     20. Coming to the pleadings before the High Court, the
appellant-husband had specifically pleaded that the
respondent-wife was suffering from Schizophrenia, which is a
kind of mental disorder and he had pointed out specific
incidents to show that the respondent-wife was not of sound            D
mind. The relevant portion of the petition for divorce filed by the
appellant is reproduced hereunder:

     "4. That the petitioner shortly after his marriage found the
     respondent to be acting in a very abnormal manner. She E
    would abruptly get very aggressive, hostile and suspicious
    in nature, ought to hit any body available in her company
    and her suspicion would go to such an extent that she
    should not like to take food without some other member
    of the family consuming the same. The respondent would
    also in a fit of anger declare that she will bring an end to F
    her life by committing· suicide and would have the petitioner
    and all the family members involved in a false criminal case
    unless she was provided with separate place of
    residence ....... Enquiries made in the meantime revealed
    that the respondent has been suffering from acute mental G
    depression coupled with Schizophrenia, a mental disorder
    and illness at intervals with Psychopathic disorder since
    developed into mania, which prompted her to become
    more and more violent and aggressive and on one such
    occasion she repeated threat of suicide and attempted H
    966     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         jumping from the house of her in-laws on 19/20.09.2001
          but could not succeed in her attempt due to timely
          intervention of her husband, who is the petitioner. ........ All
          the same hoping that treatment may cure the respondent
          she was got treated by the petitioner and her parents from
B         various places in connection with her mental illness but
          such treatment provided to her including administering her
          electric shocks, did ·not improve the state of affairs. She
          was so treated as indoor and outdoor patient in Shri Guru
          Teg Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar in Psychiatric Department
c         in Dr. Vidya Sagar Mental Health Institute and in Bhatti
          Neuro Psychiatric Hospital till the end of the year 2001 but
          all the intensive and costly treatment did not yield fruit and
          she could not be cured of her mental sickness. The
          respondent is, therefore, suffering from major mental
          disorder in which she has suicidal tendency and becomes
D
          aggressive and violent in her behaviour for which she was
          getting treatment, as referred above, before as well as
          after the marriage. She has been given anti-psychic
          treatment and even electric therapy at four occasions at
          least to the knowledge of the petitioner but the things did
E         not improve therewith. The respondent has, therefore, been
          suffering incurably from unsoundness of mind and has
          been so suffering continuously or intermittently from mental
          disorder of such a kind and such an extent that the
          petitioner cannot reasonably be expected tO live with the
F         respondent.

          5. That on one such occasion under the fit of insanity the
          respondent pushed the petitioner from the staircase
          leading to their residential portion causing the petitioner
G         fracture of right hand for which he got treatment from, Dr.
          Hardas Singh Sandhu in the last week of November, 2001.
          Such aggressiveness was not first of its kind and in the
          past also the respondent under the fit of insanity ventured
          to slap the petitioner in his face in the presence of his
H         parents .... ."
       PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE@ KAJAL                         967
               [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

 The above averments make it clear that the appellant-husband,         A
 after narrating specific incidents of abnormal behaviour of the
 respondent-wife had ciuly pleaded that she was suffering
 continuously/intermittently from 'incurable' mental disorder of
 such a nature that he cannot be reasonably expected to live with
 her. It was also stated therein that due to her unsoundness, the      B
 respondent-wife was not able to lead a married life and thus
the appellant-husband was entitled to a decree of divorce. Apart
from this, the appellant-husband had brought cogent evidence
on record to show that the respondent-wife was not in a fit state
 of mind whereas the respondent-wife could not lead any                c
acceptable evidence to rebut the same. We have already
pointed out that the respondent and her father admitted her
mental illness and periodic treatment from the doctors
mentioned above. No doubt, it was pointed out that after the
marriage, the couple was blessed with a female child and at
                                                                       0
present she is studying in a school and there is no dispute about
the same. It is clear from the respondent's evidence that from
the date of delivery of child, the child was periodically taken care
of by her grand-parents. It is also relevant to note that whenever
the child was with respondent-wife, she (the mother) was not
taking appropriate care which is clear from the evidence of the        E
appellant-husband (PW-4) and their landlord, Madan Lal (PW-
5). One incident which was referred to was that many a times
the respondent-wife casually threw the child facing opposite to
her. Under these circumstances, the High Court ought to have
accepted the case of the appellant-husband.                            F

      21. The High Court rejected the plea of the appellant-
husband regarding cruelty on the ground that apart from his
statement, there is no evidence to prove the same and Madan
Lal (PW-5), being hearsay, his evidence was not reliable. As           G
rightly pointed out by Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior
counsel for the appellant-husband that as far as Madan Lal (PW-
5) is concerned, the High Court has only referred to his cross-
examination without even adverting to the examination-in-chief
wherein he had categorically stated about cruelty meted out by         H
    968     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A respondent-wife to the appellant-husband. The relevant portion
  of the evidence of PW-5 is as follows:

          "Thereafter Pankaj Mahajan, his wife Dimple alias Kajal
          and their infant child aged about 4-5 months started living
          on the upper portion of my house. They lived in my house
B
          on rent upto 30.11.2002. After some days of taking of the
          house on rent by them, I felt that the girl Dimple was not
          taking any interest in household affairs and she used to
          avoid doing household works .......... .
c          .......... She used to sit idle after Pankaj's going to office
          and was not breast-feeding the child even after child's
           uncontrollable crying. Not only this, she used to come down
          and sit in our bedroom for long hours unnecessarily and
          talking rubbish and repeating on the same thing again and
D         again. Many times when I asked Dimple why she behaves
          like this and whether she is alright or not, then she did not
          reply back and kept mum and whenever she answered to
          my queries, she used to say that I want to die and my heart
          says that I should commit suicide. When I heard this from
E         the mouth of Dimple, I become doubly sure that she is
          mentally unsound and due to her unsound behaviour even
          my family too become disturbed and started living in
          constant fear because it appeared from her behaviour that
          she will do something extreme one day and if she does
F         so, then apart from her in-laws, all of us too will be
          unnecessarily implicated in the criminal case. Dimple used
          to come to our house during lunch time and demand food
          for herself and used to sit in our house for long hours and
          whenever Pankaj used to come back from his office, she
          used to tell him that we will go to our portion after taking
G
          meals from us. She used to repeat one thing many times.
          One day, she even went to the extent of saying that you
          are cooking food every day-then.why don't you keep us as
          your paying guest because I cannot prepare food myself
          and I also cannot look after my child. Mostly Dimple used
H
        PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL                       969
                [P. SATHASIVAM. J.]

     to leave her child with my daughter-in-law and request my        A
     daughter-in-law that she should change clothes, bath the
     child and give her canned milk. My daughter-in-law did all
     this for 5-6 times, but one day my daughter-in-law clearly
     told Dimple that this is your duty and she herself should
     loqk after the child. On hearing all this, Dimple immediately    B
     turned red in anger and slapped my daughter-in-law and
     called her idiot."

 It is clear from the above that the respondent-wife was not of
 sound mind and she did not look after the household work C
 rather she used to give threats to commit suicide. She did not
even make food for the appellant-husband and he had to
arrange the same from outside. Apart from this, she used to
embarrass the appellant-husband before his landlord's family
and because of her weird behaviour and threats to commit
suicide, the appellant-husband was forced to leave the rented D
accommodation. Madan Lal, the landlord, PW-5 has also
highlighted several instances when the respondent-wife used
to quarrel with her husband and he had to face humiliation in ·
front of others because of her behaviour. Inasmuch as PW-5
was living in the same house on the §round floor and the E
appellant-husband and the respondent-wife were living on the
first floor, the said witness being the eye-witness to the cruelty
meted out by the respondent-wife to the appellant-husband, as
he had himself seen the behaviour and the activities of the
respondent-wife including humiliation and threats of committing F
suicide, cannot be thrown out. Under those circumstances, the
observation of the High Court that the statement of PW-5 is only
hearsay is liable to be rejected.

     22. lh addition to the evidence, the appellant-husband had       G
categorically pleaded in his petition for divorce about the cruelty
meted out to him. He narrated the incidents when she used to
give threats to commit suicide and had even tried to commit
suicide by jumping from the terrace and also pushed him from
the staircase resulting in fracture in his right forearm. Due to      H
    970     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A her mental disorder, on various occasions, she even slapped
  him. She was also most disrespectful to his parents and she
  even forced him to live separately from them. His evidence in
  the form of an affidavit filed before the trial Court is available
  in the paper book wherein he narrated all the sufferings meted
B out by her. It is useful to refer the relevant portion from the same:

           "My wife Dimple used to become annoyed and angry on
           petty issues. She used to abuse and fight with me. She
           used to flaunt her father's status and influence. She used
           to comb her hair throughout the day. She used to cry like
c         children. She used to apply brakes of a moving vehicle.
           She used to call strangers in the house and offer them tea.
           Once she even called a washerman in the house and gave
           him Rs. 200/- unnecessarily and when he said thanks she
           immediately snatched Rs. 200/- from his hands and
D          slapped him for no rhyme or reason and thereafter she
           abused him and pushed him out of the house. In fact, such
          things had become her everyday chores. She used to tell
          me everything about sex lives and relationship of her
          maternal uncle and aunt. She was in the habit of not
E         sleeping throughout night and also used to keep me
          awake throughout night and whenever I tried to sleep, she
          used to insist me to talk to her and whenever I told her to
          allow me to sleep, she used to press my neck. She used
          to wakeup the child from deep slumber and start slapping
F         her for no reason. She was in the habit of wrapping the
          child in wrapper throughout continuously and due to which
          child used to weep continuously. She used to say that she
          is obsessed and hears outer world's voices and barking
          of dogs. She used to tell me that she is regularly seeing
G         evil spirits. She used to go out for roaming at 2-3 a.m. in
          the night. Whenever I refused to listen or agree to her
          demands, she used to throw dirty clothes upon me. She
          was in the bad habit or keeping the door of toilet opened
          throughout the day even while she was bathing or refreshing
          herself. She used to doubt everything whenever she
  PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL                      971
          [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

started eating her food. She also used to doubt her mother     A
and sister and used to say that both of them have immoral
character. She was in the habit of opening and closing the
central locking system of the car. She was in the habit of
increasing the volume of TV to the maximum
unnecessarily. Whenever I used to go to office, she used       8
to stop me from going and when I told her that I have _to
go to office, she used to say that she will commit suicide.
In fact she was in the habit of pressing and coaxing me
for all her needs and desires. She used to say that I want
to live with Happy and also used to say that she has no        C
interest in living with me. She stressed that she will leave
me and starts living with Happy. {Happy is the son of my
wife's elder paternal uncle.)

 She was in the habit of unnecessarily arguing with my
 parents and used to abuse them and whenever I stopped D
 her from doing so, she used to threaten me that she will
 commit suicide. However, I used to request my parents to
 look after her in my absence. But she used to misbehave
 and insult them. She used to say that she will buy her own
 house and will start living in that house, because this house E
 is very small for her needs and she feels suffocated in this
 house. Although my house is in a very posh colony and_ it
 is a very spacious, airy, open and large house. I noticed
that condition of Dimple is becoming worse every day. I
became sure that she is actually mad and she is F
concealing her madness from me. I noticed that she used
to keep some medicine in her purse and used to take that
medicine often. She was actually sex-hungry and was not
interested in doing any household works. She never
showed any interest in keeping her bedroom and drawing G
clean and tidy. She was in the habit of wearing the clothes
of 3-4 days regularly. She used to wake up very late in the
morning. Whenever my mother and sister called her to join
them, she was abusing and insulting them. She used to
call my mother stupid and my sister as wretched. However, H
    972    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         I controlled myself and kept on tolerating her conduct,
          because all of us were in the fervent hope that one day
          God will cure her. ...

          ..... One day, my friend Sumit came to my house. Earlier
          also he used to come to my house as he is also working
         with me in the UC. He wished Dimple and enquired about
       · her and instead of welcoming him, Dimple insulted him by
          saying why are you coming to our house uncalled every
          day. He felt very insulted and sat in the drawing room on
         the ground floor and when I was also coming down to join
c         him, Dimple pushed me from stairs and started laughing
          unnecessarily. As a result of aforesaid pushing, I fell down
          and bones o( my right arm and wrist got fractured.
         Perchance, Ashok Kumar too had come to my house on
         that day and he was repeatedly asking for meals. But when
D        he saw my condition, he immediately took me to the
         Hospital of Dr. Hardas where plaster was applied on my
         arm and wrist. When we came back, to my utter shock and
         surprise, Dimple did not even notice any change in me and
         did not remotely felt that I have received fractures in my
E        arm and wrist and plaster has been applied on my arm.
         One day when we were sitting in the drawing room, I called
         Dimple and asked her to bring tea for me. At that time she
         was wearing very dirty clothes. So, I asked her to
         immediately go and change her dirty clothes and wear
F        some good clothes. But instead of changing her clothes,
         she started abusing me and even slapped me on my face.
         Thereupon my mother asked her why she is behaving like
         this, upon which she rose her hands to slap my mother too,
         but my sister stopped her from doing so. We narrated all
         the above incidents of Dimple to her father. He expressed
G
         his shock and apologized on her behalf and advised us
         to start living separately and said that she will start
         behaving properly and nicely."

    All the above details in the form of assertion in the affidavit
H
           PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL                     973
                   [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

clearly show that the appellant-husband faced cruelty at the           A
hands of the respondent on several occasions.

     ,23. It is well sett.led that giving repeated threats to commit
suicide amounts to cruelty. ·When such a thing is repeated in
the form of sign or gesture, no spouse can live peacefully. In         8
the case on hand, the appellant-husband has placed adequate
materials to show that the respondent-wife used to give
repeated threats to commit suicide and once even tried to
commit suicide by jumping from the terrace. Cruelty postulates
a treatment of a spouse with such cruelty as to create                 C
reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful
or injurious for him to live with the other party. The acts of the
respondent-wife are of such quality or magnitude and
consequence as to cause pain, agony and suffering to the
appellant-husband which amounted to cruelty in matrimonial law.
From the pleadings and evidence, the following instances of            D
cruelty are specifically pleaded and stated. They are:

      i.      Giving repeated threats to commit suicide and even
              trying to commit suicide on one occasion by
              jumping from the terrace.                                E

      ii.     Pushing the appellant from the staircase resulting
              into fracture of his right forearm.

      iii.    Slapping the appellant and assaulting him.
                                                                       F
      iv.     Misbehaving with the Colleagues and relatives of the
              appellant causing humiliation and embarrassment.
              to him.

      v.      Not attending to household chores and not even
              making food for the appellant, leaving him to fend       G
              for himself.

      vi.     Not taking care of the baby.

                                                                       H
    974     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A          vii.    Insulting the parents of the appellant and
                   misbehaving with them.

           viii.   Forcing the appellant to live separately from his
                   parents.

B          ix.     Causing nuisance to the landlord's family of the
                   appellant, causing the said landlord to force the
                   appellant to vacate the premises.

           x.      Repeated fits of insanity, abnormal behaviour
c                  causing great mental tension to the appellant.

           xi.     Always quarreling with the appellant and abusing
                   him.

           xii.    Always behaving in an abnormal manner and doing
D                  weird acts causing great mental cruelty to the
                   appellant.

        24. All these factual details culled out from the pleadings
  and evidence of both the parties clearly show the conduct of
E the respondent-wife towards the appellant-husband. With these
  acceptable facts and details, it cannot be concluded that the
  appellant-husband has not made out a case of cruelty'at the
  hands of the respondent-wife. We are satisfied that the
  appellant-husband had placed ample evidence on record that
F the respondent-wife is suffering from "mental disorder" and due
  to her acts and conduct, she caused grave mental cruelty to him
  and it is not possible for the parties to live with each other,
  therefore, a decree of divorce deserves to be granted in favour
  of the appellant-husband. In addition to the same, it was also
  brought to our notice that because of the abovementioned
G reasons, both appellant-husband and the respondent-wife are
  living separately for the last more than nine years. There is no
  possibility to unite the chain of marital life between the appellant-
  husband and the respondent-wife.

H         25. In the light of the facts and circumstances as discussed
         PANKAJ MAHAJAN v. DIMPLE @ KAJAL                  975
                 [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

 above, in· our view, the impugned order of the High Court A
 resulted in grave miscarriage of justice to the appellant-
 husband, more particularly, the High Court failed to consider the
relevant material aspects from the pleadings and the evidence,
the ultimate conclusion cannot be sustained. The appellant-
husband established and proved both grounds in terms of B
Section 13 of the Act In the result, the appeal stands allowed.
The divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband stands
accepted and a decree of divorce is hereby passed dissolving
the marriage of the appellant with the respondent from today,
i.e. 30.09.2011. The impugned order of the High Court dated      c
06.08.2009 in FAO No. M-123 of 2006 is set aside. The
appellant-husband is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2 (Two)
lakhs as alimony to the respondent-wife in two equal instalments
within a period of three months from today and to deposit Rs.
3 (Three) lakhs in the name of his daughter in the shape of three D
FDRs in a nearest nationalised bank in three equal instalments
commencing from January, 2012 ending with June, 2012. On
attaining majority, the daughter is permitted to withdraw the
amount. Till such period, the respondent-wife is permitted to
withdraw accrued interest once in three months directly from the E
bank from the said deposit for the benefit and welfare of their
daughter.

B.B.B.                                       Appeal allowed.