PROMILA Vs. JOHNSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Wife (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) filed a petition under Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act 1869 against her husband (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), for getting a declaration to the effect that the marriage between them was a nullity on the ground that the same has not been consummated owing to the impotency of the respondent; that the respondent was impotent at the time of marriage and continued to be so till the date of presentation of the petition in the Court of District Judge, Chandigarh. No written statement was filed but instead a compromise was entered into between the parties that the marriage between them may be declared null and void.

(2.) The trial Court on the basis of the written compromise between the parties, which was placed on record as Ex.C/1 and on the statements of the parties allowed the petition and the marriage between the parties was declared as nullity subject to confirmation by this Court as required under Section 20 of the Indian Divorce Act.

(3.) From the order of the trial Court dated 21.8.1991 or from the statements of the parties recorded on 20.8.1991, it could not be spelt out that the respondent had admitted his impotence at the time of marriage and at the time of institution of the petition and, therefore, no decree in terms of Section 19 of the said Act for declaring the marriage between the parties to be a nullity could be granted Today i.e. on 7.2.1992, respondent has filed an affidavit wherein he has stated that the marriage between him and the petitioner had not been consumated and that he is impotent qua her. The affidavit is taken on record In view of the affidavit filed, we are satisfied that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has not been consummated from its inception and that respondent was impotent qua the petitioner at the time of mama and continued to be impotent till the institution of the petition.