2024:BHC-AUG:8149-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.18 OF 2024 Ameya S/o. Arun Kulkarni, Age: 27 years, Occupation: Business, R/o. Varad, Samta Nagar, Sawedi, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..Appellant Versus Isha w/o Ameya Kulkarni, (Isha d/o Parag Mahajan)

Age: 26 years, Occupation: Household, R/o. Plot No.75, Malhar, Sector N-1, CIDCO, Ch. Sambhajinagar, Dist. Ch. Sambhajinagar. ..Respondent …

Mr. Swapnil Joshi h/f M/s. J. P. Legal Associates, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Sanjeev Deshpande, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. M. D. Swami, Advocate for Respondent.

…

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :- 01^st APRIL 2024. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :- 15^th APRIL 2024.

JUDGMENT (Per: S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.):-

1. The appellant/orig. Respondent impugns the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the Family Court, Ch. Sambhajinagar in Petition No. B-08 of 2023 below Exhibit-15 refusing to pass judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal can be narrated as under:

On 13.03.2023 the marriage between the appellant and respondent has been solemnized as per Hindu rights and customs at Aurangabad. It was an arranged marriage. It is the contention of the respondent (orig. petitioner) that unfortunately marriage brought an agony and a sense of being deceived to her as the matrimonial relationship couldn't be pulled beyond 17 days due to disinterest of the appellant (orig. respondent) in the relationship. During this period marriage could not be consummated. On 16.03.2023 the sister of the appellant decorated room with flowers and petals. However, the appellant disturbed such material and declined physical relations. On the next date i.e. on 17.03.2023, he slept alongwith his grandparents. On 23.03.2023 couple went for honeymoon to Bengaluru, but during this trip no physical relationship could be established. When the respondent complained about abnormal behavior of the appellant, he got angry and asked the respondent to leave house. Thereafter there were episodes of family meetings. However, no conciliation could be achieved. The respondent contends that the marriage could not be consummated due to some mental or physical disability of husband in the nature of ‘Relative Impotency’. In this background, she approached the Family Court for annulment of marriage and decree of nullity under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appellant filed his reply. He admits that the marriage could not be consummated. However, blames the respondent for the same.

3. The respondent filed an application below Exhibit-15 to pass the judgment on admission in terms of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code contending that the appellant has admitted in written statement that the marriage could not be consummated till their separation on 30.03.2023. He has also admitted that during the short stay of 15 days, the appellant and the respondent could not connect with each other mentally, emotionally or physically. The appellant filed his reply to application Exhibit-15.

In paragraph nos.4 and 5 of the reply, he states thus:

“4. The Respondent states that he is perfectly normal and in the particular situation as mentioned in his Reply, he was unable to keep physical relations particularly with the Petitioner and not otherwise.

5. Unfortunately this marriage turned out to be a nightmare for the Respondent and he does not want any stigma on him, but his qua impotency (Relative impotency) towards the Petitioner was and is due to her behavior explained in Respondent's Reply.”

4. The Family Court after hearing the respective parties, rejected the application below Exhibit-15. Hence, this Appeal.

5. Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was nightmare. The relationship ended in just 17 days of the marriage. They separated without marria