USHA RANI Vs. SIKANDER LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the wife is directed against judgment dated 27-2-1982 passed by the learned Additional District Jude, Delhi whereby her petition under Sec. 12(l)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, was dismissed.

(2.) The appellant wife filed a petition for annulment of marriage under Sec. 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is alleged in the petition that the parties were married in aocordance with the Hindu Rites on 23-4-1978 in Delhi. Soon after the marriage i.e. on 24-4-1978, the respondent without the knowledge of the appellant left his house and returned after a couple of hours later and informed the appellant that the respondent was not feeling well. The parties continued to attend hospitality of their friends and relatives in the evening on 24-4-1978 and when the relatives and friends left the appellant and the respondent, the respondent-husband showed signs of repulsion and wanted to be away from the company of the appellant. The respondent retired to the bed without even uttering a single word to the appellant. At night the appellant was astonished when the respondent made no attempt to complete the marital obligations and the respondent felt shy for the whole night. Next morning the respondent without any rhym or reason left the house and returned after about four hours. The appellant stayed with the respondent for about a week. All these days the respondent did not try to consumate the marriage and he remained away from the appellant. It was detected by the appellant that the respondent had been suffering from psychological barrier and as such the sexual intercourse was practically impossiable. The appellant remained with the respondent up to 2-10-1978. After April 1978 also the appellant remained with the respondent for about a week in a month and then used to return, back to her parents' house. The parents of the appellant kept on telling the appellant that the respondent would be alright very soon and the parents of the respondent also informed the parents of the appellant that they were treating the respondent from a qualified doctor. However, during the entire period the respondent did not try to consumate the marriage and remained away from the appellant. The appellant is continuously living with her parents since 2-10 1978 and neither party has met each other during all this period. It is alleged that since the marriage was not consumated on the date of the marriage nor on the various dates when the appellant remained in the company of the respondent, the same is due to the impotency, mental and physical condition of the respondent and as such the appellant is entitled to dissolution of marriage.

(3.) The petition was contested by the respondent-husband. In the written statement, it was pleaded that no cause of action had arisen to the appellant and as such the petition was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also stated that the petition was not in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Rules framed thereunder. On merits, the allegations of impotency were denied. It was pleaded that the respondent had consumated the marriage on the first night as also on various other occasions. It was further pleaded that the appellant never made any complaint regarding impotency of the respondent and she was always sexally satisfied and as such there was no occasion to make such allegations. It was further pleaded that the appellant was insisting cohabitation even during the course of mansuria and the respondent rightly refused on the ground that the same was injurious to health. It was also stated that the respondent was always potent and is still in a condition to further carry out his marital obligations.