The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has rendered a judgment nullifying the marriage of a young couple, citing the man’s ‘relative impotency’ as the reason for their inability to consummate the union. Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and S G Chapalgaonkar presiding over the division bench emphasized the couple’s anguish and frustration, deeming it unjust to overlook their predicament.
The case unfolded when a 27-year-old man appealed to the bench following a family court’s denial in February 2024 of his 26-year-old wife’s petition to annul the marriage at the outset. In their ruling on April 15, the high court delineated the concept of ‘relative impotency,’ distinguishing it from general impotence, which pertains to the inability to engage in sexual intercourse altogether.
Relative impotency, the court explained, refers to a condition where an individual may possess the capability for intercourse but is unable to perform adequately with their spouse. This discrepancy may stem from various physical or psychological factors.
In this specific case, the court concluded that the husband exhibited relative impotency towards his wife, thus hindering the consummation of their marriage. Recognizing the couple’s youthful plight and the distress they endured due to the non-consummation, the court deemed it imperative to address their situation compassionately.
The court noted the husband’s initial reluctance to acknowledge his relative impotency, perhaps attributing the issue to his wife. However, upon reflection, he admitted to his condition, realizing that it did not imply general impotence and would not subject him to lifelong stigma.
The couple, wed in March 2023, parted ways after merely 17 days, citing non-consummation of the marriage. The court’s decision provides a resolution to their predicament, offering solace and closure to the young couple in their quest for marital harmony.
Also Read: Donald Trump Cancels North Carolina Rally Because Of Approaching Storm
The woman alleged that the man refused physical intimacy, citing his ‘relative impotency’ in her plea for marriage annulment. She expressed their inability to connect mentally, emotionally, or physically.
Initially, the man accused the woman of the unconsummated marriage but later admitted to relative impotency, emphasizing his otherwise normal health. He sought to avoid the stigma of general impotence.
In response, the wife filed for expedited divorce proceedings, invoking the Civil Procedure Code’s provisions. However, the family court dismissed the request, alleging collusion between the couple.
