MARIA ALIAS OMINI Vs. K IGNATIUS ALIAS RONNIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the wife is directed against the Judgement of the learned single Judge of this Court who dismissed her application for annulment of her marriage.

(2.) In the petition, it had been alleged that she and the respondent were married on 18-8-96 as per Roman Catholic rites at Loyola Church in Nungambakkam and that immediately after the marriage she was taken to the respondent's house, wherein she lived with the respondent. The respondent instead of acting like any normal husband had avoided having coitus with the petitioner, which gave rise the suspicion in the petitioner's mind regarding such very unusual behaviour on the part of the respondent. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent went to the extent of informing the petitioner that sex is not an immediate attraction, and avoided having intercourse with the petitioner. Such behaviour on the part of the petitioner continued for months together, and the marriage remained unconsummated despite the entereaties of the petitioner. The respondent did not engage in intercourse even though the petitioner lived with him for ten months. It was, therefore, alleged by her that the respondent suffered from serious sexual disability and had failed to fulfil a fundamental obligation of matrimony. It was alleged by her in paragraph 4 of the petition that the fundamental obligation of the respondent as the husband of the petitioner could not be fulfilled because of his disability of not being able to consummate the marriage by carnal copulation.

(3.) It has also been alleged by the petitioner that having become completely frustrated, she had to leave the matrimonial home and go back to her parents place after which she caused a legal notice to be issued. In response to that notice the respondent denied the allegations made against him, but he stated that he was not interested in living with the petitioner and that he needed some time to return the money which he had taken from the petitioner's parents at the time of the marriage. The personal effects of the petitioner were also returned after that exchange of notices.