Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. The respondent in the petition had not stated that he had a sexual inter course with the appellant. But at the time of evidence he deposed that after the marriage he attempted to have sexual inter course with his wife and the latter refused and he forcibly had the sexual act and after that he felt that he had raped a girl of 8 or 11 years. It is important to note that the respondent married the appellant in the year 1974 and the respondent admits that he had sexual intercourse with the appellant even in the month of Dec. 1979. Of course delay in bringing a petition under Section 19 of the Divorce Act is not a bar by itself. But it is relevant when considering want of proof i.e. such conduct on the part of the respondent as to estop him from remedy. When the respondent made a serious allegation in the petition that the appellant was impotent or frigid he should have given full details regarding the mutual relationship they had after the marriage. The respondent failed to give all the details, but at the same time gave startling revelation of the so-called rape at the time of evidence. This would only indicate the extent to which he would give exaggerating statements against the appellant.