The main legal point established in the judgment is that unchallenged evidence, including admission in pleadings, can be sufficient to support a decree of nullity under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. The Family Court Appeal, under section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is filed by the appellant/petitioner, challenging the Judgment dated 11.04.2022, passed in F.C.O.P. No. 11 of 2022 by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Court, Anantapur, dismissing the petition filed under Section 12(a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the petitioner, seeking to declare the marriage dated 14.12.2018 between the petitioner and the respondent as null and void.

2. We will refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the original petition.

3. In a nutshell, the petitioner’s case is as follows:

(a) The petitioner and the respondent are the wife and husband, and their marriage was performed on 14.12.2018 at Anantapur. At the nuptial night, the petitioner entered with utmost pleasure, but the respondent represented the petitioner that he was strained and he wants some rest. Thus, the marriage was not consummated at that time.

(b) The petitioner further contends that the respondent stayed at her parents' house until 06.01.2019, during which time he denied the petitioner sexual intercourse. Subsequently, the respondent left for Germany, leading the petitioner to reside at her parents' house in Hyderabad. Later on, the petitioner herself travelled to Germany, where she secured employment. During this period, the respondent openly declared his impotence, asserting that his family members were aware of this even before the marriage took place.

(c) It is further stated in the petition that, upon her request, the respondent consulted a doctor in Germany on 14.05.2020 regarding a penetration problem. Following continuous observation, it was revealed that the respondent suffered from a penetration problem and hypo plastic testicles. Finally, the petitioner left the respondent's company on 05.12.2020 and returned to India, and the respondent also returned to India on 19.12.2020. Numerous attempts at reconciliation took place between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent openly admitted his impotence and declared himself unfit for married life. Consequently, both parties mutually agreed to pursue a divorce without disclosing the reasons behind it. They jointly filed F.C.O.P. No. 190 of 2020 before the competent court seeking mutual divorce. However, the petition was dismissed on the ground that both parties had hastily filed for divorce without adhering to the statutory requirement of a one-year separation period. Subsequently, the petitioner filed F.C.O.P. No. 11 of 2022 under Section 12(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a declaration that the marriage held on 14.12.2018 be declared null and void.

4. The averments in the petition have not been controverted by the respondent by pleadings as he has chosen to remain ex-parte in F.C.O.P.

5. On behalf of the petitioner, PW.1 and 2 got examined and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the respondent.

6. After hearing the petitioner's counsel, the trial court dismissed the F.C.O.P. Aggrieved by the Judgment, and this appeal is filed.

7. A memo was filed on behalf of the petitioner/appellant stating that a notice had been served to the respondent in the appeal through E-Mail and registered post with acknowledgement; the respondent gave a response through E-mail on 06.12.2022 and attached his response dated 13.12.2022 stating that he has no objection to granting a divorce. The respondent filed an affidavit along with a memo dated 25.04.2023, wherein he said that he received the notices in F.C.A. (Family Court Appeal) sent on behalf of the appellant and that he is not interested in the marriage with the appellant, he does not want to contest the appeal, and he has no objection for dissolution of their marriage.

8. We have heard arguments of Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing Smt. C. Sindhu Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant.

9. We have given our thoughtful and anx