SURINDER SINGH Vs. NIRMALJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While dealing with Civil Misc. No. 10435 CII of 1999 on October 25, 1999, the main case as such was ordered to be listed for hearing on October 27, 1999. Misc. application was ordered to be heard with the main case. On the adjourned date, however, Counsel for the parties were not available. The matter was adjourned for today. After hearing the learned Counsel representing the parties, by a short order of the even date, the appeal was dismissed. Reasons follow now.

(2.) Before I, however, might proceed to give reasons for dismissing the appeal in hand, it required to be mentioned here that there are other Misc. applications as well but the learned Counsel representing the parties have not addressed any arguments and have not invited any decision on the said applications during the course of arguments.

(3.) Nirmaljit Kaur was married to the appellant Surinder Singh on 6-11-1994 at Bathinda. Only after about seven months of her marriage, she filed a petition under Sec. 12 (a) (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of nullity of marriage on account of impotency of the appellant husband Surinder Singh and on some other grounds. Inasmuch as, she succeeded before the trial Judge in getting the desired relief on the ground of impotency, there is no need at all to give details of other pleadings made in the petition or for that matter even the pleadings made in the written statement. While projecting her cause, she pleaded that soon after marriage, she joined her husband and remained in his company. Some close relations also arranged separate room for the purpose of cohabitation but husband was pretending to be suffering from some disease and stated that he was taking medicines and was advised by the doctor not to cohabit with her. She believed his version as he assured that he would be in a position to cohabit after some days. She, however, started feeling unpleasant atmosphere in the house but keeping in view the honour of her parents and in order to avoid shock to them, she kept silent. Only ten days after the marriage, her husband left her in her parents house with the instruction not to disclose the fact regarding non-cohabitation and further informing her that he would be going to Delhi for better treatment. In the month of January, 1995, she was present at village Mehraj in Bathinda district and while sitting in company of her colleague Raj Rani, who is a Hindi teacher in the school, she broke down. She was, however, consoled by Raj Rani who persuaded her to repose confidence in her. She then narrated her trouble and disclosed to her that her husband was not cohabiting with her despite separate accommodation and it appeared that he was not able to consummate marriage. Raj Rani suggested to her that the matter was serious and that steps must be taken to inform the elders. It was in these circumstances that the matter was brought to the notice of the elders. Petitioner's father and his friend Bhupinder Singh then met the husband of the petitioner. They were assured that the husband of the petitioner would be examined and if required would be given medical treatment. The father of the respondent-wife, however, made a complaint that a fraud has been committed with her daughter and the parents of the husband knew well before time that the husband was impotent and was unable to consummate marriage and yet this fact was not disclosed. On 6-5-1995 when husband in the company of Iqbal Singh, Malkiat Singh Raj Rani met Harpal Kaur sister of the husband that husband was confronted with the situation and he had to admit that he is physically unfit due to the disease, frustration and was unable to consummate the marriage as also unable to cohabit with the wife. It is on these broad pleadings that the petition was filed. The appellant-respondent in the written statement denied that he was impotent. It was, however, admitted that he was operated for brain tumour in the year 1976 but after operation he was completely fit and was working as a teacher in a government school. The petition in hand was filed just to harass him by levelling false allegations and quite to the contrary, it is the wife who wanted to live separately and further wanted that some agricultural land be transferred in her name. She left her husband without any reasonable cause. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues :-