Advocates:
['N MANOHARAN', '', 'M ganesh', 'L Monish', 'R RENUKADEVI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 10.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

C.M.A.No.500 of 2022

A.C.Sudhakar

.. Appellant / Respondent

vs.

Vinaya

... Respondent / Petitioner

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the

Family Courts Act, to set aside the judgment and decree dated

17.12.2021 in H.M.O.P.No.1133 of 2015 on the file of the

Principal Judge, Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, by allowing

this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.N.Manoharan

J U D G M E N T

[Judgment of the Court was made by V.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises against the order of

the Family Court, Coimbatore, passed in H.M.O.P.No.1133 of 2015

on 17.12.2021.

2.The

appellant/Husband

is

the

respondent

and

respondent/Wife is the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No. 1133 of 2015

on the file of the family Court, Coimbatore.

3.The respondent/wife filed H.M.O.P.No.133 of 2015 for

divorce against the appellant to dissolve the marriage held on

29.06.2014 on the ground of cruelty before the Family court,

Coimbatore. She also filed a petition in M.C.No.187 of 2015 for

maintenance. The Family Court allowed the divorce petition,

aggrieved by this granting of divorce the appellant/husband

filed this appeal.

4. The case of the respondent/wife is that the marriage

between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on

29.06.2014 at TRS Kalyanamandapam, Salem as per the Hindu

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Customs. After the marriage they lived at Salem. According to

the respondent/wife, the first night ceremony was not conducted.

Subsequent days also the appellant/husband did not incline to

consummate the marriage. After one week the respondent came to

know that the appellant is impotent and he is unable to enjoy

the sex pleasure and he had no normal genital organ and non co-

operative in sexual intercourse. Therefore, the marriage could

not be consummated. The respondent/wife decided to take him to

the doctor for consultation of curing impotency. But, he

refused. The appellant/husband frequently took the respondent to

various high class bars and consumed alcohol in her presence.

Whenever, she objected, he quarreled with her. The appellant's

parents also encouraged the attitude of the husband and tried to

convince her, as, it is only pressure in his life. Finally, she

was driven out of the house on 23.01.2015. Therefore, filed the

petition for divorce.

5.The appellant/husband filed counter and contested the case

and denied the allegation made in the petition. But, any how in

the counter he inclined to grant divorce to the petitioner/wife

in H.M.O.P.No.113 of 2015.

6.In the Family Court, the respondent/wife examined herself

as (P.W.1) and also examined one Rajkumar as (P.W.2) and filed

eight documents which was marked as (Ex.P.1) to (Ex.P.8). The

appellant/husband examined himself as (R.W.1) and one

J.Kalaiyarasan as (R.W.2) and filed ten documents which was

marked as (Ex.R.1) to (Ex.R.10).

7.The Family Court considering the oral and documentary

evidence, granted divorce and declared the marriage held on

29.06.2014 is dissolved. Another M.C.No.187 of 2015, the

Tribunal awarded maintenance to the wife at the rate of

Rs.30,000/- per month payable before the 7^th day of every month

by the appellant/husband. The appellant/husband aggrieved by the

decree of divorce alone filed this appeal.

8.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

allegation of impotency is not proved before the Family Court.

The wife did not plead any specific date of knowledge about the

husband's impotency. The respondent/wife did not adduce any

medical evidence or by examining doctor to prove the impotency

of the husband. The allegation of non consummation of marriage

is false.