SUGUNA THERESA PADMAVATHI DEVASAHAYAM FALSELY CALLED SUGUNA GNANADOSS DAVID, MADRAS Vs. GNANADOSS DAVID, DANIEL, MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition under Ss. 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, Act IV of 1869, to declare the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent null and void on the ground that the respondent was impotent, at the time of the marriage and at the time of the petition. The petitioner and the respondent are Indian Christians and they were married on 11th May, 1960, at the Church at Jehova Shammah, Vepery, Madras, as evidenced by the Marriage Certificate Ex. P. 1. The respondent lived with the petitioner in his father -in -law's house ever since the date of the marriage till disputes arose between the parties in the end of September, 1960. The petitioner's case is that the respondent did not have any physical contact with her and never consummated the marriage. But the respondent has pleaded in his counter and gave evidence that he had normal sexual intercourse with the petitioner. It is clear from the evidence in this case that disputes arose when the petitioner's father questioned the respondent about his selling a ring and the respondent left the petitioner's house after a quarrel. But, on the next day, the respondent, his paternal uncle R.W. Prakash and a number of relations went to the petitioner's house, when she was alone with her father, and demanded that the petitioner should be sent with the respondent. The petitioner's father agreed to it on account of fear that he would otherwise be manhandled. But on the next day he went to Villupuram along with the petitioner and told the parents of the respondent that the petitioner could not be sent to the respondent. Subsequently, there were some attempts to bring the parties to live together, but they failed. Finally, the petitioner has come forward with this petition for declaring the marriage null and void.

(2.) The main question for consideration in this petition is whether the respondent was impotent at the time of the marriage, and at the time of the filing of this petition. The evidence of the petitioner shows that the respondent had no physical Contact or sexual intercourse with her. It was only a month after the marriage she told her father about it, when he questioned her about it. Subsequently, she questioned the respondent and he stated that he had to undergo an operation. Her evidence is corroborated by the evidence of her father P.W. 2, Gnanaprakasa Devasahayam. The evidence given by the respondent that he had sexual intercourse with the petitioner is hardly convincing. He stated that he had sexual intercourse not only on the first night but also on several occasions and that he would have had sexual intercourse 10 or 12 times during the period of six months when he stayed with the respondent. But he also deposed that the petitioner complained of pain and that she used to do masturbation for him. But no such suggestion was made to the petitioner. He admitted that his father asked him what was wrong with him and took him to Dr. Thyagarjan and that Dr. Thyagarajan advised circumcision. He had circumcision at the Perambur Railway Hospital. But even subsequently the respondent did not have sexual intercourse with the petitioner.

(3.) R.W. 2 Daniel is the father of the respondent. Even in chief examination he deposed that the petitioner's father complained to him that the respondent had not conducted himself as a husband. In cross -examination it was suggested to him that on one occasion the petitioner's father sent for him and told him that his son was not capable of having sexual intercourse with the petitioner. He stated that the petitioner's father did not send for him but, he admitted that when he went to the petitioner's father, he told him about it. In fact, the respondent's father has stated in the letter Ex. P -2 that after a simple operation the respondent would be perfectly right. It is not the respondent's case that he had any aversion for the petitioner, or that the petitioner never allowed her to have sexual intercourse. On the other hand, the respondent's case is that he had sexual intercourse with the petitioner. It is clear from the evidence of the respondent himself that he was taken to several doctors, viz., Dr. Venugopal, Dr. Jackson and Dr. Cheriyan. According to him, Dr. Venugopal advised him to take milk and almond to gain strength. There can be no doubt that the respondent was taken to several doctors on account of his inability to consummate the marriage.