DEBASHIS CHAKRABORTY Vs. MAUSUMI BHATTACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the husband of the respondent. She filed a petition for annulment of her marriage with the appellant on the only ground that the marriage between them could not be consummated owing to impotence of the appellant, a ground provided in Section 12 (l) (a) of the hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as the Act) rendering a marriage voidable.

(2.) HER petition was allowed by the Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura by judgment dated 21-3-2006 in Title Suit (nullity)55 of 2003 annulling the marriage by a decree of nullity. Aggrieved, the husband is before us in appeal.

(3.) IN her petition under Section 12 (1) (a)of the Act, she averred that her marriage with the appellant, a veterinary surgeon serving under the State Govt. was solemnized on 7-2-2003 by performing all essential hindu Vedic rites in the house of her parents. On the following day, she came to the house of her husband, the appellant herein. Though they shared the same bed, there was no approach from him for sexual activity on that night. Third day of the marriage being 'kal ratri they could not see each other being prohibited by customs. Fourth day of the marriage was 'subha ratri' (auspicious night) when newly couples are expected to enjoy conjugal bliss by indulging in sexual intercourse. But to her utter surprise the appellant did make no advance for intercourse under the pretext that he was exhausted. On the following day i. e. 11-3-2003, they came to the house of her parents and on that night also, they had no sexual intercourse on the ground that he was attacked by influenza. Thereafter also, they continued to share the same bed, but the appellant refused to participate in sexual intercourse. He requested her not to disclose to others that he had no sex with her during this period. The respondent wife immediately realized that her husband was impotent. To confirm this, she herself took initiative for sexual intercourse; but with shock and dismay she discovered that there was no impulse or quiver in his penis. His male organ had no erection and rigidity required for penetration. She came to be disappointed and upset with her dream of marital bliss totally collapsed. The appellant, however, tried to persuade her that he would overcome the problem and go for treatment. On 22-2-2003, they together went to Dr. N. C. Pal, who examined him and prescribed some medicines. On 23-2-2003, she came to her parents' house to spend eight days as per customs known as 'ath Naiori'. After eight days, she returned to her husband to find there was no improvement in him. They again went to Dr. Pal who advised him to consult Dr. Bhubaneswar Roy, a Psychiatrist. She came back to her parents' house on 18-3-2003 and contacted her sister-in-law and her husband who were the chief negotiators of the marriage and disclosed to them about her husband's impotence. At the instance of the guardians and relatives, the appellant was taken to Dr. Pradip Das, a gynaecologist; to whom he admitted that he was impotent since before his marriage. None of the doctors could give him any hope of his cure. The relation between the parties thus aggravated. Her only grievance is that knowing fully well that he was impotent, the appellant married her and ruined her life. Though she returned to the appellant's house on 25-5-2003 for a brief period on the request to give him a last chance for recovery by allopathy and ayurvedic treatment, she left the appellant finally on 30-5-2003 and presented her petition for a decree of nullity on 18-7-2003, within a period of six months from the date of their marriage.