CASE ANALYSIS:-
RITA NIJHAWAN VS. BALKRISHNA
Author:ESHA CHATTERJEE, a Student of BIRLA GLOBAL UNIVERSITY
FACTS-
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.
ISSUES-
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.
ARGUMENTS FROM PETITIONER SIDE-
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.
ARGUMENTS FROM RESPONDENT ’S SIDE-
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.
JUDGEMENT-
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.
CONCLUSION-
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.