Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Since there is no evidence that the husband beat the wife or that there was any cruelty in the form of starvation and the like, what should be considered is whether it is established that the husband was impotent within the meaning of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act and whether there was any attempt on his part to commit acts of sodomy on the wife and whether such attempts amount to cruelty such as is relevant. What should also be considered is whether there was similar cruelty resulting from the imputation of unchastity.

14. The only two matters which remain are those appertaining to the charge of impotence and that of attempts to commit sodomy I shall first advert to the charge of impotence.

15. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act makes it clear that a decree of nullity is possible only on proof that the other spouse was impotent at the time of the marriage and continued to be so until the institution of the proceeding. If such impotence could be a ground for a decree of nullity. it would be an equally efficacious defence to an application for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. That is the clear meaning of Section 9(2) of the Act What is equally plain from that sub-section is that an application for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot he resisted unless impotence such as what could support an application for a decree of nullity is established by the wife.

I do not find it possible to read Section 12(1)(a) in the way in which Mr. Mariappa asked us to read it. I have no doubt in my mind that the time of the marriage to which that clause refers, has reference to the time when the marriage is solemnised and not the date fixed for its consummation which may vary from case to case Section ft of the Act which refers to the solemnisation of the marriage and Section 7 which authorises the solemnisation of the marriage in accordance with the customary rights and ceremonies of either party thereto afford the clearest indication that what has to be established under Section 12(1)(a) is impotence on the date of the solemnisation of the marriage whatever may be the date of its consummation.

23. In my opinion the period during which continuous impotence has to be established is the period commencing from the date of the solemnisation of the marriage and ending on the date of the institution of the proceeding. Such impotence is not established in the case before us

24. I am also disposed to lake the view that the evidence on record is insufficient to support the conclusion that even during the brief period to which the wife referred in her pleading and in her evidence the husband was impotent. Mr. Marriappa is, to my mind, right in suggesting to us that on a matter like impotence the wife would be the person who could give the best and the most trustworthy evidence. He asked us to say that impotence to which Section 12(1)(a) refers is incapacity to perform the sexual act with the other spouse whatever may be the causes producing such incapacity and that such incapacity is impotence within the meaning of that clause although there may be capacity for the performance of the sexual act with another women. In support of this submission. our attention was asked to C. v. C. (1921) P 399.