The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a wife calling her husband impotent without legally substantiating the same would amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

A bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice K.S. Hemalekha has given the remarks while setting aside the family court judgment which had dismissed the petition of the husband seeking divorce.

According to the case details, the husband averred that the wife was co-operative for one month afyer the marriage, however, her behaviour changed later on. The husband alleged that she refused to do household work and also started making allegations against him that he is incompetent to discharge his matrimonial obligations and he is an unfit person to be a husband. The allegation of impotency was disclosed not only before him, but also before relatives of both parties, which caused lot of embarrassment to the husband resulting in mental torture. That made the situation worse and intolerable for him to lead the life with his wife and thus, sought for a decree of divorce

Advocate Srinand A. Pachchapure, for the husband said that other than the wife disrespecting the husband and her in-laws and refusing to do the household work, she had started making serious allegations that the husband is incapable of discharging his matrimonial obligations. This act of the wife has subjected the husband to mental and physical cruelty as she said all of those not only infron of his parents but his relatives as well.

The wife contended that their marriage was never consummated, without there being any fault on her part and that the act of husband created a doubt in her mind regarding incompetency to perform his matrimonial obligations. It is further urged that she is always ready and willing to join the husband in spite of his incapability to perform his marital obligations.

The bench on going through the records noted, “No material is forthcoming and no efforts have been made to prove that the contention raised by her about the impotency of the husband is true and is not merely an allegation, but a fact. This having not been done, the allegation of impotency in the presence of others and her husband would necessarily affect the reputation of the husband.”
It added, “No prudent woman would think of making allegations of impotency in the presence of others, rather she would take necessary steps to see that the reputation of the husband is not affected and not thrown out in public. The complaining of incapacity of the husband to bear children, without any proof creates an intense mental agony and anguish of the husband.”

The court further noted that the wife cod not prove the allegations and therefore it remarked,
“The wife has failed to discharge the burden to prove that the husband is impotent as the husband is willing to undergo medical examination as stated in his affidavit. Having not proved the allegation, the unproved/unsubstantiated false allegations about impotency has led to mental disturbance of the husband causing disharmony between the husband and wife, which makes the husband unable to stay with the wife.”

The bench also found fault with the family court order which has taken note of the conciliation proceedings between the husband and the wife before the Mediator.

The court said, “The allegations having not been proved to be genuine, and calling the husband an impotent without legally substantiating the same, itself would amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(ia) of the Act and the trial Court was not justified in holding that the cruelty asserted by the husband is not proved.”

Accordingly it allowed the appeal of the husband and dissolved the marriage. It further clarified that in light of the facts and circumstances of the case and going by the salary of the husband, award of maintenance by the trial Court at Rs.8,000 per month to be paid on monthly basis as and when it accrues till she remarries and this amount of Rs.8,000 would be in the nature of permanent alimony to the wife, till she gets remarried.

Case No: MFA NO.102625/2015 (MC)