Short Note : 1. A decree nisi of nullity of marriage had been granted to the petitioner-wife on the ground that the respondent her husband was impotent at the time of the marriage and continued to be so at the time of the institution of the suit. The respondent did not appear to contest the proceedings before the District Court. Rather on a notice given by the petitioner before the filing of the petition, he had admitted that he was impotent on account of certain injury he sustained during his school days and the medical treatment had no effect. The proceedings before the District Court were non-contentions. 2. Held : Where the marriage is sought to be annulled on the ground of physical impotency, medical evidence is generally considered the best evidence. In the present case the District Court did not ask the respondent to submit to medical examination, obviously because he was ex parte and had admitted in his reply to the petitioner's notice that he was physically impotent to consummate the marriage. The learned counsel of the respondent expressed that the Court might proceed on the basis that the respondent had refused to undergo medical inspection. Decree confirmed.