Page No.1 of 8 IN FAM-63-2016 2026:CGHC:6909-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FAM No. 63 of 2016 Badrinath Devangan S/o Shri Shankar Prasad Devangan, Aged About- During Course Of Filing Divorce Petition 54 Years, Now 56 Years, R/o Devanganpara, Juna Bilaspur, Tahsil And Dist. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus Smt. Sarswati Devangan D/o Khushiram Mehar, Aged About 48 Years W/o Badrinath Devangan, R/o Gaurishankar Mandir Road, Near Old Gurudwara, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Division Bench Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board (06.02.2026) Per: Ramesh Sinha, CJ 1. In this appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the appellant- husband is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned order dated 19.01.2016 (Annexure-F/01), passed by the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, whereby his application filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of divorce and dissolution of his marriage with the respondent herein has been rejected. SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 8 IN FAM-63-2016 2. The facts of the case, in short, is that the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the respondent on 12.03.1986 and, out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with two issues. It is the case of the appellant that after the marriage, it came to his knowledge that his wife (respondent herein) has been suffering from incurable mental disorder, namely, Schizophrenia prior to their marriage and, on account of which, she used to go her maternal home without informed him. On being enquired about the same, the father of the respondent did not inform him the truth at any point of time and, the respondent, even without informing, used to live out of her home for several day. It is also alleged by the appellant that the respondent, being a mother, did not take care about their children, indeed, they were tortured by her. The respondent and the appellant are continuously living separately for about 14 years and meanwhile the respondent lodged false report against the appellant making allegation of demand of dowry and loss of social integrity. Therefore, on 17.07.2013, the appellant-husband filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur seeking a decree of divorce and dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. But, the learned Family Court vide impugned order dated 19.01.2016 (Annexure-F/01) rejected the said application of the appellant on the ground that the appellant-husband failed to prove that his wife (respondent herein) is suffering from incurable mental disorder and, on account of which, he suffered mental cruelty. Aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Page No.3 of 8 IN FAM-63-2016 learned Family Court is absolutely unjustified in rejected the application of the appellant-husband for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent-wife by recording findings which are perverse and contrary to the record. He also submits that the appellant is living separately for past 17 years alongwith his children and no matrimonial relation has been consummated in these long periods, nor there is any chance or possibility of their reunion. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court dated 19.01.2016 (Annexure-F/01) deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the appellant seeking a decree of divorce is liable to be allowed. 4. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. In the case at hand, the main ground raised by the appellant- husband for grant of a decree of divorce is that his wife (respondent) is continuously suffering from an incurable form of mental disorder, namely, Schizophrenia which comes within the four corners of Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act and, due to which, he cannot reasonably expected to live with her. On this context, the appellant submitted that even before the marriage the respondent (wife) was suffering from schizophrenia. This fact has been stated to be proved by the respondent’s father and brother, who have admitted that her mental Page No.4 of 8 IN FAM-63-2016 illness was treated in Durg, Bhilai, Bilaspur, and Ranchi. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in Ranchi only mental patients are treated, and the medical documents produced in this regard (Exhibits P- 02 to P-38) also confirm that the respondent underwent prolonged treatment. Further, to the newspaper cutting marked as Exhibit P-39, the respondent once went to Uttar Pradesh, and this fact is corroborated by the statements of her father. It is also clear from the letters written by her father (Exhibits P-40 to P-43 and P-46 to P-48) that the respondent’s father concealed the fact that she was mentally ill prior to the marriage, because in those letters he has mentioned her earlier treatment. Whereas, on the other hand, the respondent contended that at the time of marriage she was completely healthy, and after proper inquiry and satisfaction, the marriage was solemnized with her by the appellant. She further stated that after the marriage, due to harassment by the petitioner’s family, she suffered a mental breakdown. 7. Though the appellant produced medical documents marked as Exhibits P-3 to P-38 and a newspaper cutting marked as Exhibit P-39 and though the relatives of the respondents, namely, Saraswati (DW- 01), Khushiram Mehar (DW-02) and Leelavati Devangan (DW-03), have admitted that the treatment of the respondent-wife for mental illness was undertaken at Durg, Bhilai, Bilaspur, and Ranchi, but from the same it can only be accepted that the respondent received treatment relating to her mental condition. However, there is no evidence on record to support the contention of the appellant-husband that the respondent-wife was mentally ill even before the marriage, or that this Page No.5 of 8 IN FAM-63-2016 fact was concealed and her marriage was solemnized with the him by suppressing material fact. Even otherwise, the appellant himself admitted that his marriage with the respondent took place on 12.03.1986, and in paragraph 18 of his cross-examination, he further admitted that when he went to see the respondent in 1985, she was studying in the 10th standard and, according to 10th-standard marksheet (Exhibit D-07) of the respondent she was studying up to the year 1985. The respondent’s date of birth is 20.09.1967, and since she was studying in the 10th class in 1985, it cannot be assumed that she was mentally ill. Had she been mentally unsound, she would not have been studying normally in the 10th standard in accordance with her age. Therefore, the petitioner’s contention that the respondent was mentally ill prior to the marriage is not acceptable. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the appellant was not informed about the respondent’s illness prior to the marriage, this fact alone does not constitute a valid ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The ground of mental illness raised by the petitioner does not justify dissolution of marriage. 8. In this regard, the appellant has not produced even a single piece of evidence on the basis of which it could be said that it was not possible for him to live with the respondent. Evidence to the contrary exists, because after the marriage in 1986, the appellant lived with his wife until the year 2000 i.e. for about 14 years. From their marital relationship, two children were also born. Moreover, in paragraph 19 of his cross-examination, the appellant himself has given the only Page No.6 of 8 IN FAM-63-2016 explanation regarding mental illness—that while filling water the respondent would not pay attention and even after the bucket was filled, the water would continue to overflow. Except this nothing unnatural or abnormal has been alleged by the appellant with regard to the mental illness of the respondent. Further, the respondent (wife) also admited that she had undergone treatment for her mental illness. However, when she was asked whether she was suffering from schizophrenia, she stated that the name of her illness to be “hysteria”, and she also disclosed the name of her doctor. Merely because the respondent once went to Mathura–Vrindavan, or because a doctor issued the certificate marked as Exhibit P-39 stating that “the respondent is suffering from a mental disorder,” it cannot be held that the respondent is such a mentally ill person that living with her would be dangerous. Even otherwise, the appellant did not get the respondent medically examined by the alleged doctor who issued Exhibit P-37, which could have proved or certified that the respondent was suffering from such an incurable mental disorder for which neither treatment was possible nor living with her was feasible. Moreover, the doctor who has given the certificate (Ex.P-37) has also not been examined before the family Court in order to prove the said certificate for the reasons best known to the appellant. 9. Most importantly, it is noteworthy that according to the appellant- husband’s own pleadings, he lived with the respondent for about 14 years. Even if, due to some mental disorder, the respondent once left her matrimonial home, the appellant himself did not make any effort to bring her back. Under Hindu law, marriage is a sacred institution and a Page No.7 of 8 IN FAM-63-2016 union of both body and soul. When discussing marriage, the mutual bond between husband and wife is also emphasized. If the wife becomes ill and, due to illness, starts behaving abnormally, it is the moral responsibility of the husband to keep her under his protection and make proper arrangements for her treatment, and not to abandon her by seeking divorce. As such, from an overall assessment of the evidence on record, it is evident that even if the respondent has some mental disorder, it is not of such a nature that the husband cannot live with her. At this stage, leaving the respondent dependent only on her aged father, the petitioner cannot free himself from his moral responsibility. From the evidence, it is also not clear what specific acts were committed by the respondent that could have caused danger or harm to the appellant or his family. Whatever incidents have been mentioned only reflect the insecurity of the respondent herself, and it was the responsibility of the appellant, as her husband, to take care of her. Therefore, on the ground of mental disorder, the appellant is not entitled to a decree of divorce, especially when treatment for mental disorders is possible in the present time, and the respondent. 10. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the appellant has failed to prove that the respondent treated him with cruelty after the marriage, or that the respondent was suffering from such an incurable mental disorder that it was not possible for him to live with her and, the learned Family Court has also clearly recorded findings in this regard, which findings, in the considered opinion of this Court, are correct finding of fact based on evidence and same are neither perverse nor Page No.8 of 8 IN FAM-63-2016 contrary to the record. 11. Accordingly, we do not find and illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 19.01.2016 (Annexure-F/01) passed by the learned Family Court and, therefore, the present appeal at the instant of the appellant-husband is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. No order as to cost and a decree be drawn accordingly. sd/- sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice s@if