1 fca-71-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2010 Shri Santosh Patangrao Patil .. Appellant Vs. Sou. Nirmala Santosh Patil .. Respondent Mr. Sachin R. Pawar for appellant. Mr. Rajesh More for respondent. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & A. A. SAYED, JJ. August 25, 2010. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Pawar the learned counsel for the appellant – husband. Mr. More appears for the respondent – wife. The mediation between the parties has admittedly failed. 2. This appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act arises from the Judgment and Order dated 21/1/2009 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Pune, thereby dismissing the Petition 2 fca-71-10 No.A-874 of 2005 filed by the present appellant. 3. The appellant and the respondent were married on 28/5/2001 as per the Hindu vedic rites and from the said wedlock they begot a son on 22/6/2002. As per the appellant, in November, 2001, he came to know that the respondent was suffering from mental illness and, therefore, he moved the petition before the Family Court on or about 17/11/2005 for divorce, which has been dismissed. 4. It was the case of the appellant before the Family Court that the respondent was a schizophrenic, she was treated for the said mental illness and this fact was suppressed when the marriage was performed. He, therefore, contended that he was treated with cruelty by the wife and thus entitled for a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In support of his case, in addition to himself, he examined two more doctors i.e. Dr. S.S. Akhegaonkar and Dr. Sharad Kshirsagar from Karad. As per Dr. Akhegaonkar, he had examined the respondent sometimes in January, 2004 at his hospital and she was a patient of schizophrenia and the behaviour of the respondent was similar to the mental illness. However, the other witness of the appellant i.e. Dr. 3 fca-71-10 Kshirsagar who had treated the respondent right from 1997-98 had placed before the court the case papers at Exh. 55 and as per him the respondent had suffered mental shock and, therefore, was in psychotic depression. He opined that psychotic depression is not a permanent type of mental illness and the illness of the respondent was not definitely schizophrenia. 5. In view of the difference of opinion between these two doctors, the respondent was referred by the Family Court for expert opinion to Sassoon Hospital on 21/7/2006. The reports of the Sassoon Hospital at Exhs.72 and 73 were placed on record. She was treated by a team of doctors i.e. Dr. Priya Memon, Dr. Amit Baburao Sapkal and Dr. Deshmukh. These reports by the Sassoon Hospital at Exhs. 72 and 73 indicated that the respondent was under observation for more than 34 days and there was no trace that the respondent was suffering from schizophrenia. The Family Court, after examining the medical opinion in terms of the reports at Exhs. 72 and 73 recorded its finding in para 21 of the impugned Judgment that the respondent was not suffering from schizophrenia and the ground of cruelty could not be proved. As per the court the isolated incident that had taken place on 4/1/2004 was not sufficient to form an opinion that the respondent was a patient of mental 4 fca-71-10 disorder or schizophrenia. In the said incident the infant baby had fallen from the hands of the respondent. 6. Mr. More, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife has also placed before us a copy of the fresh petition filed by the appellant before the Family Court at Pune and the same is registered as Petition No.A-698 of 2010. By this fresh petition, the appellant has sought divorce on the ground of desertion, in addition to the earlier ground of cruelty. It is for the Family Court to deal with the said petition. However, so far as this appeal is concerned, we do not find any error in the view taken by the Family Court and the well reasoned order does not support the claim made by the appellant before us and, therefore, there is no ground to cause interference with the impugned judgment. 7. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (A. A. SAYED,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)