VAISHALI SHRIKANT ARANE Vs. SHRIKANT PANDIR ARANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. The learned advocate Mr. Karpe waives service for the respondent. At the request of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioner who has filed a proceeding for annulment of marriage styling it to be a petition under Sec. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act is aggrieved by the rejection of her application for amendment of the petition (Exhibit-48) seeking to add a paragraph so as to insert the averments in respect of impotency of the respondent husband.

(3.) After having heard both the sides at length and perusal of the the record and the proceeding, it transpires that the petitioner did file the petition styling it to be one for annulment of marriage under Sec. 12. A minute perusal of her petition would reveal that she made a strenuous attempt to allege that the respondent was all the while unwilling to consummate the marriage. She has narrated the episodes wherein he denied to have sex. Conspicuously, though it could have been in her mind to make up a ground under Sec. 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking annulment on the ground of impotency of the respondent, the petition clearly lacks specific and clear averments so as to make out that ground.