SURAJ PRAKASH SEHGAL Vs. AMRITA SEHGAL DARNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the ex parte judgment and order dated 14th August, 1997 passed by the Additional District Judge dismissing the petition filed-by the petitioner under Section 12(l)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act in which the petitioner prayed for annulment of marriage by a decree of nullity.

(2.) Case of the petitioner as pleaded in the said petition filed under Section 12(l)(a) of the Act was that he was widower and the respondent was a divorcee and they were married according to the Hindu rites on 6th June, 1996 at Delhi. It is alleged in the petition that the marriage of the parties could not be consummated owing to the impotency of the respondent and that both the parties lived together upto 28th July, 1996 when the respondent left for her sister's home and that there was no consummation of marriage at all due to the behaviour, conduct and impotency of the respondent. It is also alleged that even the parties to the proceedings went to Nainital and had opportunities to share the bed during nights but in spite of that no sexual intercourse could take place between the parties as the respondent was not capable of any intercourse.

(3.) The respondent did not appear to contest the aforesaid petition in spite of service of the process and, therefore, the Trial Court ordered for proceeding the case ex parte as against the respondent. The matter accordingly proceeded ex parte as against the respondent and ex parte evidence was recorded. The petitioner herein examined himself as Public Witness 1 and also produced Dr. (Mrs.) Preeti Sehgal as Public Witness 2. The petitioner in his evidence reiterated the statements made in the petition. Dr. (Mrs.) Preeti Sehgal, who was examined as Public Witness 2, stated that on 23rd June, 1996 she talked to the respondent about her difficulty and the respondent disclosed to her that her previous husband used to try to have sex with her and that she used to feel painful spausmatic contractions and as such doing of sexual intercourse used to become difficult and so she was unable to perform the sexual intercourse. She also deposed that she had observed that the respondent was having impotency problem but in spite of that the respondent did not agree for taking treatment from her.