LAWS(KER)-1989-10-7

JOYKUTTY MATHEW Vs. VALSAMMA KURUVILLA

Decided On October 17, 1989
JOYKUTTY MATHEW Appellant
V/S
VALSAMMA KURUVILLA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.F.A. No. 774 of 1987 is an appeal filed by the husband petitioner against the judgment in O.P. (Div.) No. 13 of 1984 dismissing his Petition for a declaration that the marriage is a nullity and void under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The O.P. was filed on 10-11-1984 and was dismissed on 6-7-1987. The main grounds on which the relief is sought are that the wife, Valsamma Kuruvilla, was impotent before the marriage that she was impotent at the time of the marriage which took place on 17-5-1982, and subsequently she continued to be impotent. She refused to have sexual relations with her husband and she showed avowed aversion to sexual life. It is also claimed that she was a lunatic before the marriage, at the time of the marriage and she continued to be so.

(2.) The O.P. was resisted by the counter petitioner wife. She denied all the allegations and claimed that the marriage was arranged at the instance of the parents of the husband, who had known her for some years and that the petitioner and herself talked to each other for half an hour and then only consented to marry each other. Subsequently the marriage was celebrated. They lived happily as husband and wife having sexual life as and when anyone of them or either of them desired it. She claims that on the very first night of marriage, the marriage was consummated and that they had sex and that they continued to have sexual life whenever they were together. They went on a pleasure trip visiting various places along with one Kumar, a friend of the petitioner, and his wife, and that they lived a happy married life. During the period from 6-8-1983 to 25-9-1983 they had immense conjugal bliss and during that time she became pregnant and subsequently she delivered a female child prematurely on 17-4-1984. The child died after living for two months and eight days.

(3.) Considering the elaborate manner in which the Petition and counter are drafted, it would be unnecessary to reproduce the pleadings in elaborate detail in this appeal judgment. The gist of the pleadings given above is sufficient for appreciating the controversies involved in the dispute between the parties.