RAJNI SINGH Vs. SANTOSH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference under S.20 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (IV of 1869) is by the District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 37-A/86.

(2.) Smt. Rajni Singh, the petitioner was married to the respondent on 25-1-84. When, according to her she lived with her husband, she found that her husband was incapable of sexual intercourse and was impotent. On complaint by her, the respondent became violent and ill-treated her. Having lived with her husband for about twenty days, the petitioner came back to her house where she communicated this fact of respondent's impotency to her sister-in-law, Smt. Prabha Singh (P.W. 2). She also gave a notice dated 10-2-86 (Ex. P-3) which was not replied to by the respondent. The petitioner, therefore, filed a petition before the District Judge, Jabalpur under S.18 of the Indian Divorce Act, seeking a declaration that her marriage solemnized on 25-1-84 with the respondent be declared null and void. Notice of this petition was served on the respondent who remained absent. The District Judge proceeded ex parte against him. The petitioner examined herself and her sister -in-law, Smt. Prabha Singh as P.W. 2. Some documents including a letter from the respondent addressed to the petitioner were also filed. Considering all these documents and oral evidence the learned District Judge found the petitioner entitled to the relief claimed. He declared the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent null and void and has referred the matter to High Court for confirmation.

(3.) After examining the record and hearing Shri Gothalwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for declaring her marriage with the respondent null and void and the decree passed by the District Judge must be confirmed. Smt. Prabha Singh (P.W. 2), the sister-in-law of the petitioner, deposed in Court that after her return from her husband, the petitioner told her that the respondent was impotent and the marriage could not be consummated. She also deposed that this fact was not known to them prior to the marriage. She also deposed that the respondent was not taking any treatment to remove the impotency. We also have on record the letter (Ex. P/2) written by the respondent to the petitioner. The contents of the letter do give some indication that there is truth in the allegation made by the petitioner. At one place in that document, it is stated that one Sunil, another relative of the spouse, had known everything about the respondent but he concealed it from the petitioner only with a view to take revenge upon her and her people. He also expressed that he and her family members be not ridiculed with reference to the marriage. He also expressed that the only relationship between them should be that of a friend and no more This all lends credence to the oath of the petitioner which she pledged before the lower court. A young lady at the outset of her marriage would not make any such false allegation against her husband. In her statement, we also find that her desire was that the respondent takes some treatment and gets cured. The respondent, however, instead of making attempt to cure himself, however reacted otherwise and became violent and cruel towards her. All this evidence on record has remained absolutely uncontroverted. In spite of such serious allegations, the respondent did not appear in the Court and quietly suffered them The petitioner's testimony and that of her witness have remained absolutely unchallenged and we do see no reason why the same be not accepted.