Read Time: 08 minutes

A division bench of Karnataka High Court consisting of Justices Sunil Dutt Yadav and Hemalekha recently held that a wife making allegation of impotency against her husband in front of others without having any proof of it amounts to cruelty.

Court was considering an appeal against an order of the Family Court that dismissed a husband's plea for divorce. The husband had sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and had moved a petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband had alleged that the wife was cooperative for one month, however, her behavior changed altogether subsequently.

The husband had claimed that the wife refused to do household work and started making allegations against him that he is impotent. These allegations were disclosed not only before him but also before relatives of both parties, which caused a lot of embarrassment to him resulting in mental torture and owing to this it was intolerable to lead a life with his wife, he had said. 

On the other hand, the wife alleged that she came to the matrimonial home to lead a happy married life, however, her dream went in vain due to the nature and distance maintained by the husband. She said that the husband is not interested in the marital life and he would always stay away for one or the other. This led to doubt in her mind regarding his competency to lead marital life and that he might be an impotent person incompetent to lead marital life. She claimed that she was always ready to discharge her matrimonial obligations and the husband, in order to cover his own defects, filed the petition for divorce.

The Family Court dismissed the husband’s plea for divorce and directed the husband to pay Rs.8,000 per month to the wife from the date of the judgment till he rejoins her company for leading future marital life.

The High Court, on hearing the contentions of both the parties, observed that no material was placed and no efforts were made to prove the contention raised by the woman about the impotency of the husband. The court observed that such allegations should be proved as facts.

Having not proven the allegation of impotency and saying that in the presence of others would necessarily affect the reputation of the husband, Court said. 

Court added, “No prudent woman would think of making allegation of impotency in the presence of others, rather she would take necessary steps to see that the reputation of the husband is not affected and not thrown out in public.”

Court further stated that the unproved/unsubstantiated false allegations about impotency led to mental disturbance of the husband causing disharmony between the husband and wife, which made the husband unable to stay with the wife. Court further observed that false allegation of impotency being made by the wife would definitely cause mental disharmony and this would amount to mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, and enable the husband to seek divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Another fact that weighed in with the Court was that the trial court relied on the conciliation proceedings before the mediator between the husband and the wife to pass its order. Court held that mediation proceedings between the husband and wife are confidential and cannot be relied on by the court unless the parties consent to the same.

Court thus set aside the order of the Family Court and dissolved the marriage. Court also asked the husband to pay an amount of Rs.8,000 to the wife, till she remarries.

Case title : Sashidhar Vs Vijayalakshmi