A Vs. B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by A against whom a decree of nullity annulling the marriage of the parties has been awarded by learned Additional District Judge, on a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by his wife B. (After stating facts and discussing evidence the judgment proceeded):

(2.) I would, therefore, affirm the finding of the Court below on issue No. 2, and hold that the present case is covered by Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, according to which any marriage solemnized, whether before or after commencement of the Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on the ground that the. respondent was impotent at the time of the marriage and continued to be so until the institution of the proceeding.

(3.) MR. De has next argued that the wife by her conduct has approbated the marriage between the parties inasmuch as she received pecuniary benefits as the wife of A from him and as such she is not entitled to a decree of nullity of the marriage. Reference in this connection has been made to the statement of the wife that after 1955 she was thinking in a general way of leaving her husband. Giving the details of the benefits derived by the wife it is pointed out that A gave 8,770. 15. 4d. in August 1955 to the wife. In 1956 shares of the face value of Rs. 1,48,000 of certain Corporation were purchased in the name of the wife. She was thereafter made Director of that Company. On 28th March 1955 A made a gift of securities of the face value of about Rs. 9,00,000 m favour of the wife. The wife was also stated to have withdrawn a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 on 8th January 1958 from the accounts of A. The authority for the operation of that account had earlier been given by A. The present case, it is contended, is covered by the dictum of lord Set borne, L. C. , in the case of G. v. M, (1885) 10 AC 171. While dealing with the doctrine of sincerity and the notion that a plaintiff bringing a suit for nullity of marriage must be actuated purely by the purpose of obtaining the relief on account of the grievance of the want of potency in the opposing spouse and to have no mixture of subsidiary motive, Lord Selborne observed: