Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The relationship of the parties to this lis as husband and wife is not in dispute. Wife, respondent in this petition has filed a petition under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' for short), inter alia seeking the relief of declaration that their marriage solemnised on 8-12-1997 as null and void and for grant of permanent alimony of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only). During the pendency of the matrimonial case, the wife has also filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for grant of interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The husband, petitioner herein has filed his objection to the main petition requesting the Court to dismiss the petition with costs and pass a decree of nullity of the marriage as prayed for by the petitioner but not on the basis of the averments made in the petition relating to cruelty but on the basis of non-consummation of marriage without any entitlement to the petitioner regarding permanent alimony. Subsequently, he has also filed additional written statement and in that has requested the Court to pass a decree of nullity of marriage without further proof of the matter. In the additional written statement in paragraph 3, he states as under:

"3. The respondent submits that, it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner that, this respondent has been the cause for non-consummation of the marriage. It is presumable that the petitioner has been the contributory factor by evading no interest to consummate the marriage. The respondent submits that, non-consummation of the marriage being alleged by the petitioner necessarily cannot lead to a presumption that the respondent is impotent, it could equally be that the petitioner herself is not tuned to a capacity to consummate the marriage. A respectable relationship after marriage cannot result in a war to consummate a marriage but synchronization of like mind and to have the willingness to consummate matters more. This aspect of the matter is attributable to the petitioner who by her conduct continued to be a stranger in spite of initiatives taken by the respondent. Without further proof of the matter, this Court can pass a decree of nullity. Under these circumstances allegation of cruelty made against this respondent is absolutely false. Further cruelty is not a ground for the relief sought for in this petition".
II. Whether the learned Family Court Judge was justified in entertaining the application filed under Section 24 of the Act by the wife and granting interim maintenance in spite of request made by the husband to grant the decree sought for by the wife in her petition?

10. In the petition filed under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, the wife seeks a declaration to declare that the marriage solemnised between herself and the respondent on 8-12-1997 as null and void, firstly, on the ground of non-consummation of the marriage since the respondent suffers from physical and psychological problems and therefore, it would not be possible for her to live with him as he has failed to discharge his marital obligations. Secondly, the non-consummation of her marriage has resulted in mental and physical cruelty and therefore, she has undergone severe mental, physical, emotional trauma due to the act of the respondent. In the petition, she also requests for permanent alimony in a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- only.

11. The respondent in his objections filed denies all the assertions and allegations made by the petitioner in her petition. In that, he states that "it was the petitioner, who has constantly expressed her decision that she was not interested in any physical relationship with the respondent and as such the respondent did not believe in forcing the petitioner into any physical relationship. Therefore, this respondent apprehends serious doubt about the petitioner's capacity or intentions. The respondent further states "that he does not suffer from any physical or psychological problems" as alleged and is physically fit and is capable of consummating the marriage only if the petitioner would permit physical contact. The petitioner suffers from a serious psychological defect; in that she has in-built aversion to physical contact or sexual intercourse. She has deliberately avoided consummation of marriage even though this respondent is ready, capable and willing to discharge marital obligations. After denying all the allegations made in the petition, as if he is giving concession, the respondent requests the Court to dismiss the petition with costs but pass a decree of nullity of marriage not on the averments made in the petition relating to cruelty but on the basis of non-consummation of marriage without any entitlement regarding permanent alimony. The respondent repeats the assertion made in the statement of objections even in the additional written statement filed before this Court. Can this admission made by the petitioner herein could be construed as admission of facts? Can it be said that it is un- equivocal, clear and positive? The so-called admission made in the objections statement is not by accepting the assertions and allegations made by the wife in her petition but only the ground that there was non-consummation of marriage because the wife has deliberately avoided consummation of marriage even though petitioner was ready and willing to discharge his marital obligation. In my view, the admission made by the petitioner is neither unequivocal nor positive. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Family Court Judge has failed to exercise his jurisdiction vested in him under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.