Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

respondent is well-placed in employment that the marriage alliance was confirmed and the marriage was performed on 13.08.2017. Dowry of Rs.10.00 Lakhs and 76 tolas of gold, as demanded by the respondent and his parents, were given to him by the parents of the petitioner.

5. After the marriage, when the nuptial ceremony was arranged, the respondent has postponed the ceremony on all the three nights on one pretext or the other without leading any conjugal life with the petitioner. Therefore, their marriage was not consummated. When the respondent proposed to have honeymoon trip, the petitioner readily accepted for the same with a fond hope that their marriage would be consummated. So, the couple went to Mauritius on 17.09.2017 for honeymoon trip and stayed in Mauritius till 23.09.2017. However, to the utter misfortune of the petitioner, their marriage was not consummated even during their honeymoon trip. The respondent threatened the petitioner not to disclose the said fact to anyone.

the respondent. Though the couple stayed in Lohalm till 18.11.2017, their marriage was not consummated. The respondent expressed his inability to consummate the marriage. Therefore, a panchayat was held in the presence of the elders. In the said panchayat, the respondent and his parents demanded Rs.15.00 Lakhs as additional dowry. The respondent also admitted about the non-consummation of the marriage. When the parents of the petitioner requested the respondent to stay for three days at their residence for nuptial ceremony, the respondent has postponed the same on one pretext or the other and he did not turn-up for consummation of the marriage. Therefore, she lodged a report with the police and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.4 of 2018 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 498-A, 506 of IPC r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

17. The material facts in this lis are absolutely not in controversy. Admittedly, there was a marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on 13.08.2017. Admittedly, that the said marriage was not consummated. The petitioner contends that the respondent is impotent and as such, their marriage was not consummated. While admitting the said material fact that their marriage was not consummated, the respondent pleaded in his counter that their marriage was not consummated as the petitioner did CMR,J.

not allow him to touch her. Thus, both the parties are throwing blame against each other for non-consummation of their marriage. Therefore, without entering into any controversy to find out as to who is at fault for non- consummation of their marriage, it is suffice to hold that the fact that remains established in this case is that their marriage is not consummated. It is a matter of record that the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent to annul their marriage by a decree of nullity on the ground that the respondent is impotent was allowed and a decree of nullity of the said marriage to that effect was passed. The said decree also became final as the respondent did not question the same in the Higher Forum. Therefore, the fact that remains established in this case is that the said marriage was annulled by a decree of nullity passed by a competent court of law under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the respondent is impotent.