( 1 ) THE marriage of the appellant with the respondent has been declared a nullity by the Additional District Judge of Delhi in pursuance of an application under Sec. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) made by the respondent. The complaint of the respondent was that the appellant was impotent at the time of marriage and continued to be so until the institution of the proceeding. That case has been accepted by the trial Judge. The decision of the trial Court was affirmed by Khanna, J, sitting singly. Hence this appeal

( 2 ) SHRI Parkash Narain, the learned counsel for the appellant questioned the correctness and legality of the decision in this case on four grounds, namely, "

(1) The appellant was prejudiced in his defence because of the fact that the necessary particulars were not given by the respondent either in her petition or in the particulars supplied later;

(2) the Courts below erred in opining that the respondent has satisfactorily established that the appellant was impotent at the time of the marriage and continued to be so until the institution of the proceedings;

(3) the Courts below should have dismissed the petition of the respondent on the ground of lack of sincerity on her part or at any rate on the ground that she had approbated the marriage; and

(4) the same should have been at least dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was guilty of laches. " While examining the appellant s contentions we cannot lose sight of the fact that the two Courts below, after a careful examination of the material on record were pleased to accept the version of the respondent. In the matter ot appreciation of oral evidence, the appellate Court attaches a great deal of weight to the opinion of the trial Judge who had the benefit of observing the demeanour of the witnesses in the box. In this case, the conclusions reached by the trial Court have been affirmed by a learned Judge of the High Court and that after carefully analysing the evidence on record and weighing the probabilities. It is true that in a Letters Patent Appeal, the powers of the High Court are very wide. But as a matter of practice, the learned single Judge s findings on questions of fact more particularly when it accords with the findings of the trial Court are treated with great deal of respect. They are not interfered with except for very good reasons.

( 3 ) BEARING in mind the above principles, we shall now proceed to examine the contentions advanced by the learned counsel tor the appellant.

( 4 ) THE appellant married the respondent in 1948. They lived together from 1948 to 1956. During that time, they extensively travelled in various parts of the world. After 1956 the respondent and the appellant did not live together. . . . . The respondent filed the petition for declaring her marriage with the appellant a nullity on March 19, 1962. These are undisputed facts.

( 5 ) WE shall now take up the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant for examination.

( 6 ) THERE is no substance in the contention that the particulars given by the respondent as regards the impotency of the appellant are inadequate. There is no issue on that point. That contention does not appear to have been taken either during the trial of the case or before the learned single Judge. Such a plea cannot be entertained at this stage. We nave gone through the pleadings. Even on merits we see no substance in that contention

( 7 ) THE burden of establishing that the appellant was impotent at the time of the marriage and continued to be so until the institution of the proceeding is no doubt on the respondent. As mentioned earlier, the two Courts below have accepted the evidence adduced by the respondent in that regard. The findings of the Courts below that the appellant was impotent at the time of the marriage and that he continued to be so until the institution of the proceedings are essentially findings of fact. Those findings are primarily based on oral

Click Here to Read the rest of this document