Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(21) I find no reason to disbelieve the statements of the parties. It is true that the wife did not state in her petition that the husband was impotent qua her. She simply said that the husband was impotent. She made the allegation in accordance with Section 12(a) of the Act. I think that was enough. An averment of impotency quoad hunc or quoad hanc is sufficient to support a decree of nullity. In any case the wife could not be non-suited on this ground when both parties admitted that the husband was impotent qua the wife.

(25) It was held that a Court would be justified in annulling a marriage if it was found that the marriage had not been and could not be consummated by the parties thereto, though no reason for non-consummation was manifest or apparent. In that decision both the husband and the wife were perfectly normal and each charged the other as being responsible for non-consummation of the marriage. The Court held that without going into the question as to who was the guilty party, it was evident that the marriage had not been consummated and could not be consummated in future also. Accordingly the Court annulled the marriage for the reason that it was satisfied that-"quoad hunc et quoad hunc, these people cannot consummate the marriage." The Court further held that the two people should not be tied up together for the rest of their lives in a state of misery. I, therefore, come to the conclusion that even when an individual is generally potent but is impotent with respect to his own spouse and is unable to consummate marriage he has to be regarded as impotent for the purposes of Section 12(a) of the Act. In impotence cases the emphasis is on consummation. A party is impotent if his or her mental or physical condition makes consummation of the marriage a practical impossibility (rialsbury-P. 228).