The Telangana High Court recently dismissed an appeal by a woman seeking a divorce and ₹90 lakh in alimony, after she claimed her husband was impotent and had concealed this condition before their marriage. The court found that she failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her allegations.
The case originated in a family court in Hyderabad, where the woman initially filed for divorce and alimony. The family court rejected her plea, leading her to appeal to the High Court. The woman, a 38-year-old software professional, argued that her 33-year-old husband, a government employee, had erectile dysfunction that he kept hidden before their 2013 wedding. She claimed the marriage was never consummated, even after they lived together in the United States for several years. She cited medical reasons, including failed surgeries and impotence, as grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She also accused him of cruelty.
The husband refuted his wife's claims, presenting medical records and testimonies to demonstrate his sexual potency. He stated that they had a consensual physical relationship both before and after their marriage. A medical test conducted at a government hospital in 2021 further supported his claim, confirming no signs of sexual dysfunction. He acknowledged that he suffered temporarily from erectile dysfunction during their marriage but after undergoing treatment, he was able to perform normally.
A division bench of the High Court, composed of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, upheld the family court's decision. The court noted the lack of substantial evidence to validate the wife's allegations and questioned the five-year delay in filing the petition after the marriage. The bench observed that the woman never informed her parents or in-laws about her husband's alleged impotence, and instead, joined him in the US where they lived after marriage. The judges stated that unsubstantiated allegations, lacking medical or factual support, are not sufficient to dissolve a marriage. The court also rejected her attempt to bring in documents from financial proceedings against the husband in the U.S., calling them irrelevant to the divorce case.
The High Court emphasized that the woman had not met the legal requirement to prove her husband was incapable of having sexual intercourse. The court found inconsistencies between her claims and her actions, particularly her continued cohabitation with her husband from 2015 to 2018, despite claiming the marriage was never consummated. The bench stated, "We are of the view that the appellant has not made out any case to annul her marriage on the ground that the respondent is impotent and not capable of performing sex, underwent harassment in the hands of the respondent and also failed to prove that she is entitled to permanent alimony of ₹90,00,000/-. We are not inclined to interfere with the judgment passed by the Trial Court". The court also stated that the wife cannot turn around after five years of marriage and allege that the husband is impotent when medical records and her own conduct suggest otherwise.
This ruling underscores the importance of providing concrete evidence in divorce cases, especially when serious allegations such as impotence are made. It also highlights that making false allegations of impotency can be considered cruelty.
