BED-LAMB! Husband wants more privacy to prove potency
25 May 2013 5:14 AM IST
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of a husband, saying that it is well settled that a person may be potent in general, but he may be impotent qua a particular woman. The husband had approached the High Court against the trial court order granting divorce to his wife on the ground of impotency.
The husband had argued that the method for his medical examination by a LNJP doctors, which gave report against the husband, was not fool proof. He said that a person's penile erection is affected by his being in tension as well and that he had told at the time of his medical examination that he was in tension. He further said that he was not given enough privacy to demonstrate sustained penile erection. He also had objected to the trial court decision of ignoring a medical report by Apollo hospital which was in his favour.
Taking everything into consideration, justice Veena Birbal, discussing various judgements on the issue, said that assuming the report of Apollo Hospital is taken into consideration, that by itself cannot prove that husband is potent qua the wife.
'In the present case, evidence on record clearly establishes that appellant (husband) has not been able to consummate the marriage with the respondent (wife), as such, he is held to be impotent qua her. In view of the above discussion, the appeal stands dismissed,' the court said.
The court also noted that the wife is a class X pass and comes from middle class family and not a earning woman. 'There is no reason why she would level false allegations against the appellant (husband),' it said.
In its order, the court also raised doubts on the husband keeping the alleged Apollo report for about one year producing at the stage of final arguments. It said that in these circumstances, doubt is created about alleged report.
The wife had approached the trial court on the ground that her marriage was not consummated due to impotency of her husband. She had contended that on the first night of their marriage, she fully cooperated with her husband but because of feeble erection, he could not consummate the marriage and he started saying that he was feeling tired. Next day, she enquired from him as to why he could not have sexual intercourse and he replied that it was a new experience for him and that everything would be all right in due course of time.
The same thing was repeated for about a week. The wife alleged that her husband was able to produce only a very feeble erection, without penetration and it would be followed by complete collapse leaving behind a trial of agony and frustration for her.
For three months in which she lived with him, there was no penetration. After six months of marriage, she had approached the court for divorce.
Apart from questioning the LNJP report, the husband contended in the High Court that that their marriage was consummated on the first night and thereafter it had been consummated so long as the wife had lived with him. The husband gave other reasons for the separation, but the court said they were bare allegations, with nothing on record to substantiate the same.
'Considering the overall evidence, the evidence of the respondent (wife) is reliable and inspires confidence whereas the evidence of the appellant (husband) is vague,' said the court.
The husband had argued that the method for his medical examination by a LNJP doctors, which gave report against the husband, was not fool proof. He said that a person's penile erection is affected by his being in tension as well and that he had told at the time of his medical examination that he was in tension. He further said that he was not given enough privacy to demonstrate sustained penile erection. He also had objected to the trial court decision of ignoring a medical report by Apollo hospital which was in his favour.
Taking everything into consideration, justice Veena Birbal, discussing various judgements on the issue, said that assuming the report of Apollo Hospital is taken into consideration, that by itself cannot prove that husband is potent qua the wife.
'In the present case, evidence on record clearly establishes that appellant (husband) has not been able to consummate the marriage with the respondent (wife), as such, he is held to be impotent qua her. In view of the above discussion, the appeal stands dismissed,' the court said.
The court also noted that the wife is a class X pass and comes from middle class family and not a earning woman. 'There is no reason why she would level false allegations against the appellant (husband),' it said.
In its order, the court also raised doubts on the husband keeping the alleged Apollo report for about one year producing at the stage of final arguments. It said that in these circumstances, doubt is created about alleged report.
The wife had approached the trial court on the ground that her marriage was not consummated due to impotency of her husband. She had contended that on the first night of their marriage, she fully cooperated with her husband but because of feeble erection, he could not consummate the marriage and he started saying that he was feeling tired. Next day, she enquired from him as to why he could not have sexual intercourse and he replied that it was a new experience for him and that everything would be all right in due course of time.
The same thing was repeated for about a week. The wife alleged that her husband was able to produce only a very feeble erection, without penetration and it would be followed by complete collapse leaving behind a trial of agony and frustration for her.
For three months in which she lived with him, there was no penetration. After six months of marriage, she had approached the court for divorce.
Apart from questioning the LNJP report, the husband contended in the High Court that that their marriage was consummated on the first night and thereafter it had been consummated so long as the wife had lived with him. The husband gave other reasons for the separation, but the court said they were bare allegations, with nothing on record to substantiate the same.
'Considering the overall evidence, the evidence of the respondent (wife) is reliable and inspires confidence whereas the evidence of the appellant (husband) is vague,' said the court.
Next Story
