Jordan Diengdoh vs Swaranjeet Singh Chopra on 29 February, 1984
(17) In Nijhawan v. Nijhawan , the wife had stated in her petition that her husband was not getting proper erection and got discharged before he could perform the act and that after getting some treatment he got somewhat better and the wife got pregnant 'although there was no normal and complete sexual intercourse between the parties as there was some penetration'. A son was born to the parties. It was thus alleged that the hub and was sexually weak and debilitated so much so that he was unable to perform normal sexual intercourse with the wife. In her statement, the wife had stated that the husband was not performing the act of coitus and that he used to get discharged before he could get his organ in contact with her organ and that after some time she noticed some improvement in the husband inasmuch as instead of getting discharged at the very beginning of his sexual advances he could retain it for a minute or two but he would get discharged before coming to her and all that the husband was able to do was to rub his organ on her organ and get discharged in the mouth of the vagina without any penetration and that this was how she got conceived. Thus, it was alleged that though the husband was getting erection of his organ the diffcutly was that he used to get discharged before being abe to penetrate the organ. The court accepted the evidence of the wife that the husband was sexually weak. The court thereafter considered the question as to whether the sexual weakness of the husband could result in a finding of impotency. However, faced with the fact of birth of a child, the court did not subscribe to the theory of 'fecundation ab extra' in this case. The court referred to the fact in the petition the wife had stated that there was some penetration though in her statement she stated that there was no penetration at all. This is how the court deal with this matter:-