VINCENT ADOLF Vs. JUME BEATRICE RAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against a judgment of Mehta J. delivered on 14th June 1984 dismissing a petition filed under the Divorce Act 1869 (referred to hereinafter as "the said Act") for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by the appellant against the respondent on the ground of impotence.

(2.) The facts necessary for the appreciation of the controversy raised before us can be shortly stated : The appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife. Both the parties are domiciled in India and practise the Roman Catholic faith. The husband was employed with a private concern in Saudi Arabia and the wife was employed as a teacher at Malad in Bombay. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized in the Church of Our Lady of Lourdes at Orlem, Malad in Bombay in accordance with Roman Catholic rites and ceremonies. In para 6 of the petition, it is alleged by the appellant that after the marriage the appellant and the respondent went to spend the wedding night at the Holiday Inn at Juhu. All efforts on the part of the appellant by way of endearment were thwarted by the respondent stating that it was too early to indulge in any sexual acts. The appellant has gone on to state as follows :

(3.) In the evidence led before Mehta J., the petitioner after setting out some of the undisputed facts and deposing to the marriage stated as follows : After our marriage, we went to the Holiday Inn Hotel and spent the night there. I made attempts to consummate the marriage, but the respondent was not willing to co-operate. The respondent permitted me to consummate the marriage unwillingly. The respondent permitted me to have sexual relations with her unwillingly. I had sexual intercourse with the respondent by using force. This happened only once, just after the marriage." Later on, Mr. Rebello, learned Advocate who also represented the appellant in the trial Court specifically put him the following question :