Bombay High Court Declares Marriage Invalid Due To Husband's 'Relative Impotency'
The Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench has dissolved the marriage of a young couple who were unable to consummate their union because of the man's "relative impotency."
Mumbai: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has annulled the marriage of a young couple that could not consummate it due to the man’s ‘relative impotency’, noting their agony of frustration cannot be ignored.
A division bench of justices Vibha Kankanwadi and S G Chapalgaonkar in the judgment on April 15 also noted that this was a fit case to help “young sufferers of marriage” who could not connect with each other mentally, emotionally or physically.
A 27-year-old man had approached the bench after a family court in February 2024 refused an application filed by his 26-year-old wife, seeking to annul the marriage on the admission stage itself.
The high court in its order said the expression ‘relative impotency’ is a known phenomenon and is different from the normal impotency, which means the inability to copulate in general.
Relative impotency broadly points to a situation where a person might be capable of having intercourse but incapable of performing it with the spouse.
The court said there could be various physical and mental causes for such relative impotency.
“In the present case, it can be easily gathered that the husband has relative impotency qua (towards) the wife. The reason for non-consummation of the marriage is this apparent relative impotency of the husband,” the HC said.
The high court said it could not ignore the fact that this was a matter concerning a young couple who faced the agony of frustration in the marriage.
The man may have initially blamed his wife for non-consummation as he was hesitant to admit he had relative impotency towards her, it said.
“However, subsequently, he candidly admitted the same, being satisfied with the fact that it would not put lifelong stigma on him. The relative impotency is somewhat different than the general notion of impotency and the acceptance of relative impotency would not brand him impotent in general parlance,” the HC said.
The couple got married in March 2023 but separated after 17 days. The couple said their marriage was not consummated.
The woman claimed the man had declined physical relations with her.
In her plea seeking for annulment of marriage filed before the family court, the woman said the man had ‘relative impotency’.
She said they could not connect with each other mentally, emotionally, or physically.
The man initially filed an affidavit before the family court stating that the marriage was not consummated but blamed the woman for it.
He later submitted a written statement admitting relative impotency.
The man claimed he was unable to establish physical relations with his wife but otherwise he was normal. In the statement, he said he did not want any stigma that he was impotent in general.
Following this, the wife filed an application seeking the family court to decide the divorce plea at the admission stage itself as per provisions of the Civil Procedure Code instead of conducting a trial.
The family court, however, rejected the application claiming the man and woman had raised collusive claims.
The HC bench quashed the family court order and annulled the marriage declaring it null and void.
(This report has been published as part of the auto-generated syndicate wire feed. Apart from the headline, no editing has been done in the copy by ABP Live.)
Top Headlines
Trending News
