Pappi vs Santosh

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband against the judgment and decree dated 6.5.1994 rendered by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, accepting the wife''s petition for nullity of marriage u/s 11(1) (a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

The marriage between the parties took place about 15 years prior to the filing of the petition and Muklawa ceremony (ceremony preceding living together of husband and wife) was performed on 11.3.1993. The petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent-wife on 27.7.1993 alleging that the marriage could not be consummated owing to the impotency of the appellant-husband. She alleged that the husband''s brother forcibly raped her. On 22.3.1993, a panchayat was convened wherein the appellant-husband and his father admitted impotency. It was also alleged that the respondent-wife was incapable of giving the valid consent to the marriage being minor and that she was treated with cruelty. The appellant-husband contested the petition and denied the allegations.

The trial Court held that the marriage between the parties had not been consummated owing to the impotency of the appellant-husband and also that the respondent-wife being below 15 years at the time of marriage had repudiated the marriage before the age of 18 years. It was also held that the appellant-husband treated the respondent-wife with cruelty by making false allegations against her. The trial Court accordingly granted a decree of nullity of marriage. Aggrieved thereby the husband has preferred this appeal.

The matter was referred to the Lok-Adalat u/s 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. Finding that there was no possibility of compromise, the matter was referred back to this Court for decision on merits.

I have perused the record and considered the matter. 1 am of the view that the trial Court is in error in holding that decree of nullity could be granted u/s 12(1)(b) of the Act. However, this makes no difference, as I agree with the trial Court that decree of nullity could be granted u/s 12(1)(a) of the Act and also that the respondent-wife was entitled to divorce u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Act. The respondent-wife has stated that the marriage was not consummated due to the impotency of the appellant-husband, This version of the respondent-wife has not been rebutted. The impotency was admitted in writing Ex.P-1. There was also evidence that the respondent-wife being treated with cruelty. I agree with the view taken by the trial Court in this regard.

In view of the above, this appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.