Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

A) The marriage would remain valid B) The marriage would be void C) The marriage would be voidable D) The marriage shall stand annulled CWP No. Claim: A The analysis by the Panel is as Hon'ble 10895 of 1. Section 12, prior to its amendment in follows: Committee 2024 1976, stated that for a marriage to be Resolved not to voidable the respondent had to be 1. Before 1976, Section 12 (1) (a) of change the impotent at the time of the marriage and Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 reads as: Official Answer continued to be so until the Institution of Key in respect proceeding. But By the Amending Act of "12(1) any marriage solemnized, of this question 1976 the substituted clause emphasizes whether before or after the and answer in the element of non-consummation of commencement of this Act, shall be the final answer the marriage owing to the impotence of voidable and may be annulled by a key is 'A'. the respondent. Now this ground can be decree of nullity on any of the taken irrespective of time whether he following grounds namely:- (a) that was impotent at the time, before or after the respondent was impotent at the Marriage. Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) time of the marriage and continued of Section 12 makes it clear that a to be so until the institution of the marriage solemnized is voidable at the proceeding;"

(a) are correct.

                                                                                               (iii)   The      Citation    Susarla
                                              3. The answer is given in section 12 of          Subhramanya Sastry Vs. S.
                                              "The Hindu Marriage Act 1955", and               Padmakshi (AP), is also not
                                              also in the book of "Modern Hindu law            applicable as impotency under
                                              written" by Dr. U.P.D. Kesari, Central           Section 12 was not in question.

5. The impotency is not to be checked (vii) The Citation 'Urmila Devi v at the time of marriage, but at the time Narinder Singh' AIR 2007 (HP), Is of consummation of the marriage. This also not applicable as impotency has been held in the cases of under Section 12 was in question Shakuntala v. Om Prakash (AIR 1981 but not during the subsistence of Del. 53) and in the case of P. V. K. (AIR marriage. The impotency of wife 1982 Bom. 400). was pleaded as the same resulted into non-consummation of marriage

6. According to Law Commission since the solemnization of the Report No. 59 of 1974, para 6.3, a marriage.

crucial recommendation was made regarding the amendment of Clause Section 12 specifically deals with 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act the grounds of voidable marriage 1955, concerning impotence. The and no ground can be added Commission highlighted a significant therein. Even otherwise, the gap in the law: cases where an authorities cited above are individual wasn't impotent at the time of distinguishable as the same do not marriage but became so when hold impotency developed during attempting consummation the subsistence of a marriage under for the first time. Citing the precedent of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 to be Ravanna v. Susheelamma, AIR 1967 a ground for voidability of a Hindu Mys 165, the Commission advocated marriage. for a revision of Section 12(1)(a) to encompass situations where impotence Thus, the objections are not tenable arises after marriage. Thus, it was and the official answer key is proposed that the clause "at the time of correct. marriage" be revised to "the marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotence of the respondent. This recommendation found resonance in the 1976 amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act through Act 68 of 1976, specifically under Sub-section (6) (effective from 27-5-1976).