AJAY RAO Vs. TARABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the husband's appeal against the order passed by the Family Court at Davanagere, annulling the marriage by a decree of nullity on the ground that the marriage has not been consummated due to the impotence of the husband appellant herein.

(2.) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the Family Court.

(3.) AFTER service of notice, the respondent entered appearance. Matter was referred to conciliation, when the conciliation failed, the respondent came forward to take back his wife and to live with her, but the petitioner herself has refused and is not willing to live with her husband, as such the conciliation was failed. In the objection statement filed, he has denied all the allegations made by his wife in the petition, however he admits the marriage. According to the respondent, the petitioner happens to be the grand -daughter of the elder sister of the respondent. On the date of the marriage, she has failed in S.S.L.C. examination. According to his knowledge, she has completed 18 years of age as represented by his mother. The parents of the petitioner forced the mother of the respondent to accept the petitioner as her daughter -in -law. Considering the relationship, the mother of the respondent agreed to take the petitioner in marriage to the respondent. Accordingly, the marriage was performed and she had completed 18 years on the date of marriage. He admits that he was aged about 30 years at the time of marriage. His father passed away when he was aged about 9 years. His father did not possess any valuable moveable and immoveable properties. At that stage, his mother was very young. The maternal grand father got the firewood business established to the respondent's mother who was a widow. Accordingly, the mother of the respondent is carrying on firewood business and income of the said business is the only source of the mother and the respondent and two more brothers. The respondent is assisting his mother in running that firewood business. He admits that he met with an accident in the year 2003 in which his left hand and right leg were fractured and no other major injuries to other parts of the body as alleged by the petitioner has occurred. As a result of the road traffic accident prior to the marriage, he has not become either disabled person or suffered any medical fitness touching his potentiality to get children after the marriage. The petitioner is working as a nurse since last one and a half years and she is earning. She has no basis to say that the marriage is not at all consummated and the respondent is impotent. The allegations of cruelty meted out to her were denied.