GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant is the husband. Though his O. P. No. 246 of 2000 filed under section 13 (1) (ia) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage act, was allowed by a judgment and decree dated 23-9-2002 passed by the Judge, Family court, Secunderabad, he filed this appeal questioning the correctness of the finding that he is impotent for leading conjugal life.

( 2 ) IT is an unfortunate and peculiar case where the parties are fighting with each other to bring quietus to their marital status as husband and wife. Though there is a consensus between the spouses to bring an end to the marital status, but the ground on which they seek divorce is different. The appellant-husband wants divorce under section 13 (1) (ia) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955 on the ground of mental cruelty; whereas the respondent-wife is seeking a declaration that the marriage between them is null and void in view of the fact that the appellant-husband is impotent.

( 3 ) IN view of the sensitiveness involved in the matter and after hearing both the learned counsel for the appellant-husband and respondent-wife, we advised both the learned counsel to settle the dispute between the parties amicabiy and we also directed the parties to be present before this Court. Accordingly, the parties were present before the Court and we conducted in-camera proceedings also. But the conciliation unfortunately failed.

( 4 ) THE factual matrix of the case as culled out from the pleadings and evidence can be briefly stated as under: the undisputed fact is that the marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 5-5-1999 as per caste, custom and Hindu rites at the residence of respondent s parents and immediately thereafter nuptial ceremony was arranged on 7-5-1999. According to the appellant-husband, the marriage was consummated on 7-5-1999 itself and they had conjugal life on the second night also. But the respondent-wife disputes the same and states that the marriage was not consummated and the appellant never tried to have any conjugal life with her and she remained to be a virgin. The appellant- husband was also subjected to medical tests by Dr. V. Rajagopal, Urologist, Apollo hospitals, Hyderabad and Dr. M. S. Reddy, psychiatrist and according to the appellant- husband, the medical tests certify that he is potent. However, as the father of the respondent-wife was proclaiming that the appellant-husband is impotent, he again underwent prolactin test and according to the report, his prolactin level is normal, which indicates that there is no gross abnormality of his endocrinal function. The appellant- husband stated that the respondent-wife used to get up at midnight saying that she intends to do meditation as instructed by her Guru and she often said that she was under continuous mental depression and as such she was directed to do meditation in the midnight. The appellant-husband further stated that the respondent-wife was very moody and used to change hertemperament in pace with mercury. The respondent-wife and her parents from the 3rd day of marriage started harassing the appellant-husband on the ground that he is not virile and unfit for marriage and they also threatened him to face a criminal prosecution under section 498-A I. P. C. Therefore, he filed O. P. before the Court below seeking divorce by dissolution of marriage between him and the respondent-wife under Section 13 (1 ) (ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

( 5 ) THE respondent-wife filed counter in which she contended that the appellant- husband is frigid towards her and he has no manly feelings. Whenever she tried to get closer to him, he pushed her away and thus it necessitated her to inform her parents about the impotency of the appellant-husband and on that her parents, who are doctors, questioned the appellant-husband. According to her, the medical evidence clinchingly establishes that the appellant-husband is impotent. She contended that the mar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document