LAWS(DLH)-1981-11-5

SUSHILA AGGARWAL Vs. VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL

Decided On November 30, 1981
SUSHILA AGGARWAL Appellant
V/S
VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (herein called 'the Act') filed by Smt. Sushila Devi Aggarwal, challenging the decree of annulment granted by Miss Usha Mehra, Additional District Judge, Delhi, by her judgment passed on 11th November, 1980, on a petition filed by the respondent herein, Shri Vijay Kumar Aggarwal.

(2.) The case of the husband was that the parties to the petition were married on 20th February, 1977, at Faridabad (Haryana). After the marriage they came to Delhi and lived for about 2 to 3 days. During that period the marriage was not consummated as the parties could not have any sexual intercourse. Thereafter, the wife left for her parents' house. When she came back after about ten days or so she stayed at Delhi with her husband for another ten days and again left for her parents' house. The case of the husband was that during the period of stay of his wife at Delhi she never mensturated. During the days when the wife was staying with him after her first visit to Faridabad the husbad tried to have sexual intercourse with his wife. According to him he could not penetrate for more than an inch or so , all his efforts to commit sexual intercourse were frustrated. In 1977 at the time of Diwali, the wife (appellant herein) had again left for her parents' house at Panipat, where her father had since been transferred from Faridabad. In January, 1978, she came back to Delhi. As the husband had not been able to consummate the marriage till that time he took her for medical examination. It was at that time found that the wife had a plastic surgery by which an artificial vagina had been put in. She had no uterus and she had never mensturated.

(3.) Alleging that his wife was impotent he sought a decree of nullity under Section 12 ofK the Act. Ts averment contained in the petition was denied by the wife in her written statement. Her case was that although she was not capable of bearing children she was capable of having sexual intercourse. In fact, she stated, the marriage had been consummated.