Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(3) The petitioner contends that on account of the non-consummation of marriage due to the respondent's attitude and due to her admission that she did not want to have sexual intercourse with the petitioner as she had fear of pain as also be ause she had no love for him the respondent should be held to be impotent qua the petitioner. The petitioner also relies on an admission by the respondent that the marriage could not be consummated on account of her frigidity. Thus the petitioner filed apetition under Sec- tions 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for a decree of dissolution of marriage. This petition was filed in March, 1978.

(4) In the District Judge's court the petition was heard ex parte as the respondent did not put in appearance despite service. In support of the contentions in the petition the petitioner only examined himself as a witness. He did not produce any other evidence. He deposed that he was married according to the Christian rites in New Delhi on February 20, 1971. The marriage was never consummated. Initially the respondent expressed a fear that she will have pain on account of sexual intercourse She would not even allow the petitioner to touch her. She had a mental blockade against sexual intercourse. The matter was discussed by the respondent with her mother in the petitioner's presence. Even the mother's persuasion had no effect. A doctor was consulted by the respondent Along with her mother but there was no change. The respondent remained frigid and cold and finally left the matrimonial home in September 1973. She refused to come back and discharge her matrimonial obligations. The Church dissolved the marriage on the ground of non-consummation after due investigation. The respondent had expressed herself to the effect that she did not love the petitioner and did not want to have sex with him. She had married the petitioner in deference to the wishes of her mother and in fact did not want to marry him.

(8) The first question which arises for consideration is whether frigidity or aversion to sexual intercourse in a wife can be regarded as impotency in the female. The matter is not free from difficulty. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made commendable research and has submitted that frigidity or conscious opposition as pleaded on the part of the wife should be regarded as a case of impotency. He has relied on several precedents in support of the contention that in capacity of a spouse undernormal conditions to consummate the marriage, whether on account of physical defects in the sex organs or due to mental or psyschological reasons, would be impotency in such spouse. The learned counsel also contends that refusal to consummate the marriage and if the refusal continues for a period of time would lead to the presumption of impotency unless reasonable of plausible excuse can be given for such refusal. At this stage we would not like to comment upon either of these contentions though there is some authority to support it. In particular the decisions reported as Birendra Kumar Biswas v. Hemlata Biswas, I Lr 1921(48) Calcutta 283. Kisore Sahu v. Mrs. Shehprebha Sahu, A.I.R. l943Nagpur 185 Smt Shantabai alias Gourabai v. Tarachand , (Staff Sargeant) Homes Gray Wilson v, Mrs. Kathleen (Harriette) Wilson otherwise Latimar, A.1..R. 1931 Lahore 245 and Yuvraj Digvijay Singh v. Yavrani Pratap Kumari, do tend to support the contention of the petitioner's counsel that given normal conditions if consummation of marriage is a practical impossibility, impotency must bepresumed. The contention, however, requires further examination.