Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Much research has been done, both in the field of medicine and psychology, and in the last two decades in particular after the research of Maters and Johnson, while dealing with cases of impotency, the predominant consideration is not physical incapacity which courts are often guided by, but another all important angle, namely, the fact that non-consummation of the marriage, could be due to several circumstances which contribute to a situation whereby both the spouses, though physically and mentally potent in the normal sense, find it impossible to achieve a satisfactory sexual relationship. The concept of relative impotency which prescribes that a person suffering from no handicap whatsoever still feels inhibited or incompetent vis-a-vis the particular sexual partner is now an accepted ground for a decree in a matrimonial Court. It is this aspect of the matter that requires serious consideration because relief's in cases of matrimonial breakdown must be speedy and simple and parties should not be pushed through long drawn out legal battles and then forced to approach the Appellate Court after years of prolonged agency merely because of insensitive and hypertechnical approaches on the part of judicial officers. It is equally essential in these cases that the relief granted be moulded within the framework of the record and that even where the original prayer cannot be granted, the Court consider the next best alternative.

8. At this stage, Shri Manudhane has made a serious grievance with regard to the approach adopted by the learned trial Judge which, in our considered view, is fully justified. Shri Manudhane submitted that having regard to the position that obtains in law and, more importantly, in medical science that the learned trial Judge was wrong in observing that if one of the parties is to be believed that the other is required to be disbelieved. He submitted that medical science and legal jurisprudence have both accepted the position that as far as impotency is concerned that there are numerous instances where two perfectly normal human beings are found to be virtually impotent vis-a-vis each other; whereas they might be perfectly potent vis-a-vis another person. It is on the basis of this position that Shri Manudhane submits that the evidence before the Court can be perfectly reconciled. He does not dispute the position that the respondent-husband may be found to be physically and otherwise potent, but he states that the limited grievance of his client was that he was not potent vis-a-vis her right through the period when he was married to her and was required to perform his matrimonial obligations. It is in this view of the matter that he submits that the decision of the trial Court is required to be not only set aside but that it is required to be modified and a decree passed on the ground of relative impotency.

9. We need to mention at this stage that we are completely satisfied from the evidence before us that the appellant-wife is entitled to a decree of nullity of marriage on the ground of relative impotency of the respondent-husband. Having regard to this position, we do not consider it at all necessary to examine the rest of the material with regard to the allegations and counter-allegations on the ground of cruelty and the several other charges that were levelled by each of the respective spouses.

12. Shri Manudhane relied on a decision of the Nagpur High Court (as it then was) in the case of Kishore Sahu v. Snehprabha Sahu, A.I.R. 1943 Nagpur 185, wherein the Court had occasion to consider the nature of the evidence that would be requisite for the passing of a decree. Undoubtedly, in matrimonial proceedings where the charges may be of a serious nature, the nature and quantum of evidence is a matter of some consequence. In a well-considered decision, the Division Bench held that where the evidence inspires complete confidence, the incriminating evidence of a spouse would be sufficient for the passing of a decree. We are in complete agreement with this view. Shri Manudhane then drew our attention to a decision of this Court in the case of H. v. H., A.I.R. 1928 Bombay 279, which dealt with the aspect of relative impotency. This decision, in our considered view, is one of some importance in so far as, as indicated by us earlier, even if the medical evidence conclusively establishes that the party appeared to be potent for all intents and purposes of that examination that a decree on the ground of relative impotency could still be passed, if it was demonstrated that the offending spouse was impotent vis-a-vis the complaining party during the period of cohabitation when they were married to each other.