CHRISTY SELVARATHY Vs. DANIEL ATHISAYARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE wife has sought for declaration that the marriage is null and void on the ground that the husband was impotent. THE marriage took place on 27.12.1993. THE wife was living with him for some time. According to her, there was no sexual intercourse during that period, she wanted the husband to go to a Doctor, but he refused to consult a Doctor. THEre was separation between the spouses and attempts at mediation failed. THEn there was a representation in the All Women Police Station at Tuticorin. At their instance, there was a re-union between the parties. THEreafter again, they got separated as there was no intercourse.

(2.) THE wife has given evidence as P.W.I repeating the averments made in the Original Petition. In the evidence she has stated that she did not want to live with her husband even though the Legal Aid Committee advised herself and her husband to live together. THEreafter, according to her, the All Women Police Station advised them to live together and she went and lived with her husband for some time. As there was no consummation, she got separated.

(3.) IN Jean Emeline Thavamani v. Joseph Taylor, (1966)1 M.L.J. 8: A.I.R. 1966 Mad. 155: I.L.R. (1966)1 Mad. 360(F.B.), the FullBench of this Court said that where a declaration of nullity of marriage is sought on the ground of impotency, difficulty will be experienced in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion from the evidence that may be placed before the court. The court said that where there is no medical inspection and none but the parties testify, the court should be hesitant to accept the mere statement of a party, particularly, when the petitioner's evidence is left unchallenged and the respondent chooses to remain ex parte. The court also cautioned that there is a possibility of collusion and at times when there is an apparent contest, collusion may prevent a vigorous and bona fide defence.