Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.TALAPATRA, SAVITRI RATHO
Milan Sahoo @ Mudei – Appellant
Versus
MATA No.52 of 2021 – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. annulling a marriage requires proof of non-consummation. (Para 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding burden of proof and impotency. (Para 4 , 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. analysis of impotency and non-consummation standards. (Para 5 , 8 , 11) |
| 4. non-consummation must be due to impotency for annulment. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. judgment annulled; appeal allowed. (Para 16 , 17) |
ORDER :
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appears for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Behera, learned counsel appears for the respondent.
3. This appeal filed under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the Judgment dated 24.12.2020 delivered in Civil Proceeding No.93 of 2018 by the Judge, Family Court, Nayagarh. By the said Judgment, the marriage solemnized between the parties on 22.04.2015 has been annulled.
4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel, at the outset, has submitted that the finding of the Judge, Family Court, Nayagarh is grossly perverse, in as much as, without any evidence as regards the impotency, the suit instituted under Section 12 (1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been decreed.
5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel has ta
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
