Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. THANGARAJ
Rama Natrajan - Appellant
Versus
Alexander Xavier Nathan - Respondents
O.M.S. No. 21 of 1998
Decided On : 03 March 1999
NULLITY OF MARRIAGE - IMPOTENCY - SECTION 18 AND 19 OF THE INDIAN DIVORCE ACT, 1869 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - FACT OF THE CASE, ISSUES, RATIO DECIDENDI, AND FINAL DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a woman, filed a petition under Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking a declaration that her marriage to the respondent, a man, was null and void due to his impotency. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was unable to consummate the marriage due to physical and psychological debilities, despite her efforts to address the issue. She further stated that she had given birth to a child during the marriage, but this was due to an accidental pregnancy resulting from vaginal contact without ordinary intercourse. The respondent remained ex parte throughout the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that impotency, in the context of marriage, refers to the incapacity to consummate the marriage, which includes the inability to have ordinary and complete sexual intercourse. The court noted that the petitioner's testimony alone was insufficient to establish the respondent's impotency, as it lacked corroboration and there was no medical evidence to support her claims. The court also considered the fact that the petitioner and the respondent had lived together for 11 years without any apparent misunderstanding or ill-feelings, which raised doubts about the genuineness of the petitioner's allegations.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had sufficiently proven the respondent's impotency to warrant a decree of nullity of marriage under Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869? 2. Whether the birth of a child during the marriage negated the respondent's alleged impotency?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of proving the respondent's impotency as required under Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The court emphasized the need for corroborative evidence and medical proof to establish impotency, which was lacking in this case. The court also noted that the petitioner's testimony regarding the lack of ordinary and complete intercourse was not credible, given the absence of any evidence of misunderstanding or ill-feelings between the parties during their 11 years of cohabitation. The court further held that the birth of a child during the marriage, even if it occurred due to an accidental pregnancy, did not negate the respondent's alleged impotency, as it was possible for pregnancy to occur without ordinary intercourse.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's petition for a decree of nullity of marriage, finding that she had failed to prove the respondent's impotency as required under Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the practical impossibility of consummation due to the respondent's alleged impotency.
The Order of the Court was as follows :
The petitioner/wife has filed this petition under Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for declaration that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 8-10-1986 is null and void.
2. The main averments found in the petition are as follows :
The petitioner Rama Natarajan alias Rama Alexander Xavier Nathan was married to the respondent Alexander Xavier Nathan on 8-10-1986 as per the Roman Catholic rites after converting herself as a Catholic and embracing the Catholic faith from Hinduism. After the marriage, the petitioner realised that the respondent was not compatible in his behaviour towards her. Due to certain mental and psychological trauma which frustrated her relationship with him more so because of relative impotency towards the petitioner. The petitioner thought that the physical and psychological debilities found in the respondent would be rectified by love and affection and medical aid. But the obstinate attitude of the respondent frustrated the efforts made by the petitioner to get-out of the psychological condition. On many occasions the petitioner had drawn the respondent into the mood of having sex with her, but even though the respondent would be initially willing but at the crucial stage the respondent would avoid having an intercourse with the petitioner and reveal in things that seldom pleased the petitioner physically. This behaviour of respondent continued for 11 years. But notwithstanding such impotency and lack of vaginal penetration, due to the vaginal contact the respondent did have with the petitioner, the petitioner somehow became pregnant and gave birth to a female child on 18-10-1987. The respondent failed to get proper erection and could never perform sexual intercourse to consummate the marriage thereof. The petitioner after having patiently waited for some remedial measure, finding that there is no solution to the psychological trauma, the respondent was suffering from, and since there was no hope for petitioner to get the fundamental pleasure from the respondent, from and out of her marriage with him finally compelled to live away from the respondent for the past two years. The petitioner issued a notice dated 18-10-1996 for the nullity of the marriage on the ground that the respondent is impotent and he is unable to consummate the marriage. The respondent received the notice on 31-10-98 and till date there has not been any response to the same thereby acquiescing the statements made regarding the relative impotency and non-consummation of the marriage with him. There is no collusion or connivance between the petitioner and the respondent in filing this petition. Hence the petition.
3. The respondent was served through Court on 24-6-1998 and in spite of service the respondent has failed to appear before this Court. After giving some opportunities, finally he was set ex parte on 10-9-1998.
4. The petitioner was examined as P.W. 1 and Exs. P.1 to P.3 were marked through her. Ex. P.1 is the marriage Certificate issued by Parish Priest of Ascension Church, Madras-29. Ex. P.2 is the notice dated 28-1-1988 issued by the petitioner to the respondent through her Advocate. Ex.P.3 is the acknowledgment of the respondent for having received the notice.
5. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1989, for declaring the marriage held on 8-10-1986 between the petitioner and the respondent as 'null and void', on the ground of "impotency" of the respondent. The parties are Indian Christians. The main averments found in the petition regarding the impotency of the respondent was that the respondent has physical psychological debilities, that whenever the petitioner was in a mood of having sex, initially the respondent would be willing but at the crucial stage the respondent would avoid having intercourse with the petitioner which seldom pleased the petitioner physically. It was
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
