Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

However, I am unable to accept the position that the ability to procreate children is a necessary ingredient of potency. Impotency in matrimonial cases has been understood to mean incapacity to consummate the marriage, that is to say incapacity to have conjugal Intercourse which is one of the objects of the marriage. Further it is not absolutely necessary that the incapacity to perform the sex act must, be general because though a person may generally be capable of a sex act yet he may be incapable of it vis-a-vis a particular individual. The Court can grant the relief if one spouse is found to be impotent in relation to the other spouse.

12. In AIR 1966 All 150 this is what has been said about impotency :--

"Impotency means incapacity for accomplishing the act of sexual intercourse and in this context, sexual intercourse means not an incipient partial or imperfect but a normal and complete coitus. Impotency has to be distinguished from sterility which may in some oases accompany impotency but is not necessarily associated with it. The two expressions denote lack of two different powers. A person may be incapable of accomplishing the sexual act and yet be capable of procreating. Conversely also, a person may be incapable of procreating and yet be capable of accomplishing the sexual act. The cause of impotency may be in the malformation or structural defect in the parts; in the functions, resulting in imperfect erection or premature ejaculation: in diseases, local or general or in the mind, manifesting itself a repugnance for the sexual act, fear, lack of confidence, etc. In some oases a person may be capable of having sexual intercourse but incapable of performing it with a particular individual, and in such a case he must be regarded as impotent in relation to that particular individual regardless of his potency in general".