Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. On the allegation that sometime during the year 1958, the wife went to her parents but never returned despite many efforts made by the husband to get her back, he sought a decree for restriction of conjugal rights.

4. The defence to that application was manifold. The husband was charged with incapacity for consummation of the marriage. It was nest said that he attempted to commit sodomy on the wife and that he imputed unchastity to her. That he commenced manhandling her and denied her even food and other comforts of life were the other allegations

5. The only two witnesses who gave evidence were the two spouses, the husband supporting his case and the wife supporting hers. But even in the course of her own evidence the wife said nothing about the charge made against her husband that he used to either beat her or starve her. She however, gave evidence about the incapacity for consummation, the unsuccessful attempts to commit sodomy and the imputation of unchastity

6. The Civil Judge who did not record any very clear findings upon the various accusations made against the husband, reached the conclusion that this was not a case in which the husband could claim a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The husband appeals

8. What remains about the matters to which the wife referred in the course of her evidence is the imputation of unchastity. To be able to defeat the application made by the husband what the wife had to prove was that what the husband did amounted to cruelty Falling within Section 10(1)(b) of the Act.

9. Although the Civil Judge did not say so in so many words, it is manifest that what he did find was that there was good and trustworthy evidence about the incapacity for consummation and the attempted acts of sodomy as also the charge of infidelity on the part of the wife. It is obvious that since the wife herself gave no evidence about the beating and the starvation to which she referred in her statement, the Civil Judge could not have intended to find that even those allegations had been established.

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.