The marriage to the parties took place in Delhi on April 14, 1954. At the time of  the marriage the complainant was about 16 times old and the replier was about 30  times old. It was  contended by the  supplicant that after the marriage the parties stayed  in Delhi for about 10 days and though the replier tried sexual intercourse with  the complainant but couldn’t consummate the marriage as he couldn’t get proper  construction and got discharched before he could perform the act. The replier had  some inferiority complex. later the replier transferred to Gwalior and  there also the replier wasn’t able to perform the act. After a time the  replier transferred to Dholpul. It was further  contended that the  supplicant was at  the time of marriage  ignorant of  coitus life of the replier and wasn’t  suitable to do  sexual intercourse because of authority. She complained her hubby and he  promised that he’d get himself treated for this purpose and started taking   drugs. The replier  later transferred to Bhopal where the parties lived  3 times. At Bhopal the replier was getting the  drugs from Delhi and got   kindly  better and the  supplicant got pregnant. The  supplicant gave birth to a  child on Feb, 1959. But the petitioner mentioned that this was only temporary  expression and the replier was again not  suitable to perform sexual intercourse. The  complainant and her parents asked the replier to get himself treated but he refuses  to do so. The replier was  later transferred to Rangat in Andaman where  the parties stayed for about a time. also he transferred to Port Blair and the parties  stayed there to 1962. The replier was  also transferred to Bombay in 1963.  when the complainant was sure that it was  insolvable for her to live with the  replier and she couldn’t tolerate the  atrocity any more. So she joined institute  of  feeding technology, Bombay, and passed her examination of  hostel  operation  in the time 1966. During this period the replier was posted at Kanpur and they  went there and stayed for about 4- 5 days but the replier had come from to  worst. Indeed in 1964 the complainant went to live with the replier but  set up that  the situation hadn’t  bettered. The replier denied the allegations. It was  denied that the replier was suffered from any inferiority complex. He also  mentioned that the allegations about the sexual  incapability of the replier or there  being deficient/  inadequate penetration is  unwarranted and false. On the other the  parties enjoyed harmonious relations and led a  veritably happy  wedded life till the time  1965. When there was an abrupt the unfortunate turn at the  disquisition of the  complainant’s parents. It was denied that there was any occasion or necessity of  treatment for any sexual  insufficiency or disability as  contended in the  solicitation.  


  1. Whether the replier was impotent at the time of marriage with the   supplicant and continued to do be so until the institution of this  solicitation.

2. Whether the replier treated the  supplicant with  atrocity as  contended in the   solicitation and if so with what effect?  

3. Whether the replier has deserted the  supplicant for a  nonstop period  of  further than 2 times? 

 4. Whether there has been  gratuitous and  indecorous  detention in  constituting this   solicitation?  

5. Relief.


 The present case of  internal  atrocity, indeed if it atomic to be  set up the replier  was sexually weak and  enfeebled so much so that he wasn’t  suitable to  perform normal sexual intercourse with the complainant for all these time,  finding of  atrocity within the meaning of the act.  The sexual weakness of the replier can affect in finding of authority. It  is in this content that the complainant is having a child. The replier is not  conclusive  substantiation that the marriage has been  perfected.

  The complainant got pregnant because the use of  drugs the replier was  getting better and it was also mentioned that there was no penetration at all.  The complainant got pregnant without any penetration and ever the semen  got inside the vagina.  

 Right from the day of marriage there has  noway  been any normal sexual life  and the replier has failed to give sexual satisfaction. The frustrating and  unsatisfied sexual life would inscrutably damage her health both  internal and  physical. It’s within  atrocity.  

 On the question of  detention, the complainant argued that it was on the account of  fear of bad name of the family that the complainant  abstain  from taking any  action the replier  before.  


 The replier argued that he fell ill  occasionally from  ramify cough, pain in  the left side of the  tummy and the croaker had told him that the  complaint  could develop into pleurisy. He also started that he remained rehabilitated for  some time and was left  veritably weak by the  complaint. He’d consulted to a  hakim in Delhi for this illness. 

 The parties led a  veritably happy and normal life right till April 7v, 1965, when  some  disagreement arose between the replier or the complainant on account of  the loan which had been advanced by the replier to the father on law. The   disagreement is that because the replier demanded his loan back, the whole  family including the complainant begrudged this with the result that present   solicitation.  

 The legal  generality of  atrocity is generally described as conduct of such a  character as to have caused  peril of life,  branches or health or as to give rise  to a reasonable apprehension of  similar  peril.

The  solicitation filled by the complainant in 1967 but according to her she came to  know in 1957 that the replier was impotent. Also why there’s  detention in  filling the  solicitation.  


The honorable judges said that  averring both the parties living together  would be nothing but  venturing the physical and  internal health of the  complainant.  

 And there’s no question of any  reproachable  detention. Parties have now reached a  stage where their living together would be nothing but  atrocity to the  complainant. In these circumstances to refuse relief on the ground of  contended   detention would not be practical and realistic approach and indeed it would be  unreasonable and inhuman.  

 Also the replier has treated the complainant with  similar  atrocity as to beget a  reasonable apprehension in the mind of the complainant that it would be   dangerous and  pernicious for the complainant to line with the replier. Therefore the  complainant is entitled to get a decree of judicial separation under sec 10( 1)( b)  against the replier.  

Court had also mentioned that the view of the circumstances of the case the  parties will bear their own cost throughout.


  A normal  wedded life will  noway  began in the life  of the parties. The complainant has accepted the situation without having sexual  relations. She had throughout put up with this  internal torture, hoping that  effects  might ameliorate but  set up that the thing remains the same. The complainant had tried  over a number of times to make the success of the marriage but as the sexual  weakness of the replier has persisted it has obviously caused great strain and  frustration to her. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *