Delhi High Court - Orders
Mrs Simran Pahwa vs Mr Angaddeep Singh Ahluwalia on 23 December, 2021
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 125/2021 & CM APPL.47198/2021
MRS SIMRAN PAHWA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sunil Dalal,
Mr. Devashish Bhadauria, Mr. Sachin Jain and
Mr.Himansh Yadav, Advs.
(Appellant-in-person through V.C.)
versus
MR ANGADDEEP SINGH AHLUWALIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashutosh Dubey and Mr. Amit P. Shahi,
Advs.
(Respondent-in-person through V.C.)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 23.12.2021
1. Issue notice. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
2. The appellant and the respondent are also present during the hearing virtually.
3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Family Courts, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. By the impugned order the learned Presiding Judge has dismissed the application preferred by the appellant/petitioner under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The appellant/petitioner had preferred a petition under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to seek annulment of the marriage on the ground of impotence of the respondent. The Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:24.12.2021 19:40:15 respondent filed his written statement, admitting that the marriage had not been consummated. He also pleaded relative impotence qua the appellant. When the appellant moved the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, the learned Presiding Judge, Family Courts has rejected the same despite the fact that the respondent had agreed to not even file a reply and to the passing of a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
4. We are repeatedly coming across orders passed by the Family Courts which exhibit complete lack of sensitivity and maturity by the Presiding Judges. We have been repeatedly saying that Courts are meant to aid and assist the litigants, and come to their rescue at every given opportunity. Courts are meant to impart justice and to alleviate discord, disputes, troubles of the general public. Since it was the admitted position that the marriage was not consummated on account of the respondent not being in a position to consummate the same with the appellant - due to his relative impotence, and the respondent had also appeared and agreed to the passing of a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC - which consent was also recorded in para 6 of the impugned order, there was no impediment in passing of a decree on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. We are unable to understand the logic or the rationale of the Family Court.
5. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court should have appreciated the fact that, firstly, the respondent had admitted to "relative impotency"
vis-à-vis the appellant. Whether, or not, he was completely impotent was, therefore, not even relevant, particularly when he had given his consent to the passing of a decree of nullity under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. Secondly, the learned Principal Judge should have appreciated the fact that for a man to admit that he is, indeed, impotent, is not easy, since such an admission or Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:24.12.2021 19:40:15 establishment of the fact of impotency carries with it, shame, guilt and embarrassment. This is unfortunate though, because the man has no control over his medical condition, and he is blamed for his natural inability to have intercourse with a woman. In our view, there is no reason for such a man to carry any shame or guilt or feel embarrassed as he has no role to play in the way he finds himself. An admission with regard to impotency or the establishment of the said fact causes the man to lose face and his self- esteem, apart from lowering his image amongst his family, friends and acquaintances, as a section of the society looks down upon the man as a failure- even though he is not responsible for his medical condition. It takes courage for a man to admit that he is, indeed, impotent. The Principal Judge should have kept in view the fact that the marriage was not consummated for the two weeks that the parties stayed together after the marriage - which would be very unusual, in the normal circumstances, as also the fact that the respondent admitted to "relative impotency". These two facts put together, coupled with the fact that the respondent did not wish to contest the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, and also admitted to passing of a decree on admission, should have been sufficient for the Principal Judge to pass the decree of nullity of marriage under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
6. Today, learned counsel for the respondent has tendered in Court a communication received by him from the respondent dated 19.12.2021 attested by the Notary Public in the State of Florida, USA, wherein he has stated that he is, indeed, impotent. The respondent, who is present in Court virtually, admits to have sent this communication to his counsel. The said communication is therefore, taken on record. Counsel for the respondent Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:24.12.2021 19:40:15 states that he shall also place the original communication received from the respondent on record once it is received. Let the same be done. We commend the respondent for showing the courage to accept his medical condition forthrightly and wish him best in all his endeavours.
7. In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order and pass a decree of nullity in respect of the marriage of the parties which took place on 23.08.2020 at Gurmat Satsang Sabha Gurudwara, (registered) 52/80, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
VIPIN SANGHI, J JASMEET SINGH, J DECEMBER 23, 2021 sr Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:24.12.2021 19:40:15