Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. In our opinion the curability of impotency is not a consideration for the purpose of deciding the case whether the marriage is voidable under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act under the amended or un-amend-ed section. It will appear from Section 13 of the Act that when Legislature thought that the question of curability is to be one of consideration for the purpose oi the decision whether the divorce should be granted they made provision to that effect in the Act. It has been specifically provided in Section 13(iii) and (iv) that to gel a divorce the respondent must be "of unsound mind for a continuous period of nut less than 3 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition or suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy". In the present Section 12(1)(a) curability is not mentioned at all. It is therefore clear that the question of Curability of impotency is not a relevant consideration for the purpose of the decision under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976. It appears to us that if it is found that there was no consummation of marriage due to the impotency of the respondent the petitioner is entitled to a decree.

21. In the case reported in AIR 1943 Nag 185 (SB) on which Mr. Gupta relied, it has been held that if the marriage is consummated the decree for nullity cannot be granted and held that the impotency must be present at the time of the marriage and when the suit was filed. Admittedly in the present case, in our opinion, the respondent was suffering from vaginismus at the date of marriage and it continued at least till 23rd September, 1974 when the Court appointed doctor P. W. 1 examined her.

22. It appears to us from Section 12(1)(a) of the Act even before the amendment was concerned, that the impotency of the respondent must be between the date of marriage and the institution of the proceeding. It appears before the amendment that the condition for getting a decree was that the respondent must be impotent at the time of the marriage and continued to be so until the institution of the proceeding. If one of these conditions is absent, the decree cannot be passed. The English case, in so far as the curability of the impotency is concerned, cannot be applied in the present case as in our opinion the wording of Section 8(1)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950 or for that matter the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 are quite different to Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.