Smt. Shashi Bala Alias Shashi vs Vishav Dev

G.C. Mital, J.—The parties were married on 14th October, 1980 On 16th July, the husband filed a petition for annulment of the marriage and in the alternative for the divorce on the ground that after the marriage, he found his wife to be impotent as the wife was not prepared to have sexual intercourse with him and whenever, he tried, it could not be performed for various reasons. Ultimately, the wife was taken to the Saint Mary''s Hospital, Tarn Taran, and operated upon on 17th November, 1980, for widening the vagina orifice and inspite of the operation, she continued to be repulsive and did not permit him to have the sexual intercourse with her. It was pleaded that since before the marriage she continued to be impotent, and in any case, was repulsive to him for sexual intercourse.

The wife contested the petition and denied the allegations. Of course she admitted that operation was performed on her, and after the operation she became normal and had sexual intercourse for about a month, whereafter, she was turned out of the house on the ground of bringing less dowry.

On the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed :--

Whether the respondent was impotent at the time of marriage ?

Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty ?

Relief.

On the evidence led in the case, the trial Court held that inspite of the operation, the wife continued to be impotent, and consequently granted decree of nullity of marriage u/s 12 of the Act on 19th November, 1984. Hence this appeal.

Reconciliation was tried. While the wife was prepared to go with the husband, the husband repeatedly stated that he had tried his level best to have sexual intercourse with the wife after the marriage, and it was not possible to do; that he got her operated; and that inspite of the operation, there was neither any sexual feelings in her, nor it was practicable. He referred to the statement of the wife made in the trial Court to the effect that even after the operation, several efforts for sexual intercourse were made, but penetration could not be made because of the defect or deformation of the vagina. Under the circumstances, he was not prepared to keep the wife. Hence, the reconciliation has failed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and perusal of the record, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the judgment and decree of the Court below. It is true that the doctors of both the sides have stated that the vagina had been widened enough and it is possible to have normal intercourse, but the wife''s own statement in cross-examination is as follows :--

After the operation, even my husband had been trying to cohabit with me four or five times. It is correct that there was no penetration.

The wife''s own case is that after the operation, she lived with the husband for about a month. During that period also, there was no penetration inspite of the fact that the husband tried to co-habit with her. In the earlier part of the statement regarding pre-operation period also, she had stated as follows :--

During this period of one month prior to my being operated upon we both as husband and wife tried to co-habit, but with no success.

Of course, the husband has also stated that he was never able to succeed in co-habiting with the wife either before the operation or after the operation because she was not having any sexual feelings nor allowed him to come near her and whenever he tried, she cried and created a scene. On these facts, it can safely be concluded that either the wife is having no sexual feelings or her sexual feelings are not aroused when her husband comes near her and, may be, she is impotent qua him and may not be otherwise totally impotent. Accordingly, I endorse the findings of the Court below that the wife was impotent at the time of marriage and continued to be so till the filling of the petition.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.