MARY SHEILA Vs. VINCENT THAMBURAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff/wife preferred a petition under S.18 read with Section 19(1) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for a declaration that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant solemnised on 3-4-1986 is null and void on the ground that the husband/defendant was impotent on the date of marriage and also at the time of institution of the suit.

(2.) The defendant, though received summons from the principal Family Court at Madras, chose to remain ex parte and consequently, the Court was left with no other option but to decide the matter in his absence. The defendant remained ex parte before this Court also.

(3.) In the plaint, in support of her case, the wife was stated that the marriage between her and the defendant was solemnised as per Christian rites at St. Thomas Basilica at Madras on 3-4-1986. For a long period, the defendant made no attempt to consummate the marriage. They went to Ooty on 5-4-1986 to enjoy their honey-moon and stayed there till 11-4-1986. Even at that time, the respondent made no attempt to consummate the marriage. This fact was made known to the father of the plaintiff and through her father, to the sister of the defendant by name Mrs. Lilly Devadoss. The matter was discussed among them. At that time, the defendant expressed his inability to perform sexual intercourse with the plaintiff. Her request to undergo a medical examination by a psychiatrist by name Dr. Raj Kumar was turned down by the defendant. Soon after, the defendant began to shout at the plaintiff even for small matters, presumably out of frustration and also as a result of his physical incapacity to perform sexual intercourse. It is further stated that the defendant started suspecting the conduct of the plaintiff whenever she talked with her close relations or friends of her father. The plaintiff, unable to put up with such type of torture, had no other alternative but to cease to live with the defendant from 29-4-1986. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had been an impotent prior to and at the time of the marriage and continued to be so even on the date of the filing of the plaint. Under those circumstances, the suit for declaration as stated above, was filed.