New Delhi : The Delhi High Court has upheld the lower court's order of divorce between a couple, saying it is cruel to make false allegations of impotence against a spouse. The wife, who was living apart in the case, accused her husband of not having sex just because of impotence.
The High Court struck down the argument of the husband's counsel that the allegations leveled by the wife were serious and could adversely affect the mental state of the person while affecting the image of the person. A bench of Justice Manmohan Singh and Justice Sanjeev Narula said, "Considering the law on the subject, we do not find any defect in the findings and observations of the lower court that the allegations of impotence in the written statement of the appellant (wife) are clear and under the definition of cruelty."
The marriage took place in 2012.
The High Court had rejected the woman's appeal against the lower court's order on her husband's application for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The two were married in June 2012. This was the woman's first marriage when the man was divorced at the time. The man pleaded for the marriage to be forfeited on the grounds that the woman was allegedly not interested in sexual relations and that her permission to marry was obtained by concealing the fact regarding the woman's alleged mental state.
The man accused of dowry said he would never have agreed to the marriage if he had known about it. The woman then alleged in her response that her husband was impotent. This is the main reason why marriage does not last long. In addition, his mother-in-law quarrels and demands dowry.
The High Court dismissed the allegations
The woman also alleged that the in-laws treated her cruelly with the demand for dowry and that her husband had beaten her badly in front of her in-laws. The woman demanded that the High Court overturn the lower court's divorce order and re-establish marital rights, saying she wanted to save the marriage. The High Court said the woman's allegations were dismissed by the lower court on the basis of expert testimony.
No comments:
Post a Comment