Judgment :- 1. Appellant filed O. P. 98 of 1984 seeking divorce under the Indian Divorce Act. The application is to declare the marriage a nullity on the ground that the respondent was impotent at the time of marriage and institution of the petition and that he was an idiot or lunatic at the time of marriage. The learned District Judge dismissed the petition holding that the appellant is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the O.P. 2. The marriage was on 26-12-1977. The allegation is that from the date of marriage the respondent is found behaving in a strange and unusual manner. It is also alleged in the petition that the respondent is impotent and the marriage was never consummated. 3. Respondent filed objection refuting the allegation of lunacy and idiocy. Allegation of impotency is also denied. Respondent contended that the very fact that he has high educational qualifications would disprove the allegation of lunacy or idiocy to the hilt. 4. The burden of proof to show that the respondent was at the time of marriage a lunatic or idiot is on the appellant. As the burden is on her she has to adduce convincing evidence to hold that the respondent was mentally deranged at the time of marriage. P. W.1 a psychiatrist attached to the Mental Hospital, Trivandrum was examined to prove that the respondent was treated for mental illness in that hospital during June-July 1978. P. W.1 stated that there are no records at the mental hospital to prove the treatment of the respondent or whether he was treated as an inpatient or out-patient. P. W. 2 who runs a private hospital at Quilon deposed that in 1979 the respondent was treated for some mental disease in his hospital as an inpatient. Ext. X-1 shows that the respondent was treated as an inpatient in P. W. 2's hospital from 1-1-1979 to 6-1-1979. P. W. 2 had no occasion to treat the respondent. He admitted that he has no direct knowledge either about the treatment given to the respondent or about the disease. Rightly, the District Judge did not place any reliance on P. W. 2's testimony. P. W. 3 deposed that he had occasion to treat the respondent in his nursing home for schizophrenia. According to him, the respondent was admitted in his nursing home for treatment on 14-11-1982 and was discharged on 4-12-1982. Rightly, the District Judge did not place any reliance on P. W. 2's testimony. P. W. 3 deposed that he had occasion to treat the respondent in his nursing home for schizophrenia. According to him, the respondent was admitted in his nursing home for treatment on 14-11-1982 and was discharged on 4-12-1982. P. W. 4 stated that in 1979 he had occasion to treat the respondent for schizophrenia and the treatment lasted for about one month. P. W. 5 doctor testified that he treated the respondent in 1978 for some mental dis-order. He was unable to say the exact diagnosis made by him. On perusing Ext. A-1 he expressed his inability to say whether the patient was suffering from any serious mental dis-order or not. Appellant was examined as P. W. 6 and she has given evidence in support of the allegations in the petition. She stated that even during the first night she found the respondent behaving in an unusual manner and during the time when they were living together he was found mentally deranged on several occasions. 5. We have to consider whether the evidence is sufficient to hold that the respondent was a lunatic or idiot at the time of marriage. There is hardly any evidence to show that the respondent is an idiot. It is in evidence that he has high educational qualifications. That by itself is sufficient to reject the allegation that the respondent was an idiot at the time of marriage. 6. The next question to be considered is whether the appellant has established her case that the respondent was a lunatic at the time of marriage. Evidence is there that the respondent was treated for mental disorder after his marriage with the petitioner. But there is no evidence of any such treatment for any such illness prior to the marriage. Counsel for the appellant submitted that it would be well nigh impossible for the appellant to prove the illness of the respondent prior to the marriage as it was not known to the appellant and other members of her family. That is no excuse to get over the legal hurdle requiring evidence of lunacy for granting divorce. The evidence adduced in the case may at best show that the respondent had suffered mental derangement and that he was treated on several occasions. That is no excuse to get over the legal hurdle requiring evidence of lunacy for granting divorce. The evidence adduced in the case may at best show that the respondent had suffered mental derangement and that he was treated on several occasions. This evidence is not sufficient to hold that the respondent was a lunatic at the time of marriage. As there is no evidence to hold that the respondent was a lunatic at the time of marriage the District Judge was justified in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to claim divorce on the aforesaid ground. 7. Counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the allegation of lunacy or idiocy fails, still the appellant is entitled to succeed as the allegation of impotency has been established beyond doubt. Whether the appellant is entitled to a decree for divorce on this ground is the next point that needs consideration. Appellant can succeed in declaring the marriage null and void if the allegation of impotency of the respondent at the time of marriage and at the time of institution of the petition is established. S.18 of the Indian Divorce Act enables any husband or wife to present petition to the District Court or to the High Court seeking declaration of the marriage as null and void. Under S.19(1) it is open to a petitioner to seek declaration of the marriage a nullity on the ground that the respondent was impotent at the time of marriage and at the time of institution of the petition. Impotency means incapacity or inability for normal sexual co-habitation. Such incapacity or inability may be on account of several factors. It may be on account of some physical or organic defect. It can happen due to the existence of some incurable disease resulting in an incapacity to consummate the marriage. It may be due to invincible repugnance or hatred for sexual intercourse in general or in relation to a particular individual. Impotency is the lack of ability to perform full and complete sexual intercourse. Imperfect and partial intercourse would not amount to consummation of marriage and if the husband is incapable of performing sexual intercourse he would in law be deemed as impotent. In Jijhawan v. Nijhawan (AIR 1973 Delhi 200) the Delhi High Court has stated as follows: "Impotency is the lack of ability to perform full and complete sexual intercourse. Imperfect and partial intercourse would not amount to consummation of marriage and if the husband is incapable of performing sexual intercourse he would in law be deemed as impotent. In Jijhawan v. Nijhawan (AIR 1973 Delhi 200) the Delhi High Court has stated as follows: "Impotency is the lack of ability to perform full and complete sexual intercourse. Imperfect and partial intercourse would not amount to consummation of marriage, and if the. husband was incapable of performing the sexual intercourse fully he would be in law deemed to be impotent." A person is impotent if his mental or physical condition makes consummation of the marriage a practical impossibility. 8. The appellant filed I.A. 1003 of 1984 in the trial Court to examine the respondent by a Medical Board. Respondent filed objection to the petition. However, he stated that he is prepared for a medical examination. The Medical Board which was constituted met on 12-3-1985. The respondent did not turn up. The appellant had to deposit Rs. 500/- for the constitution of the Board. As the respondent did not turn up before the Board the appellant again deposited Rs. 500/- and preliminary examination by Medical Board was fixed on 26-7-1985. Though the respondent was informed about the date he did not care to face the Board. In such circumstances the Court can certainly draw an adverse inference against the respondent. 9. Though a party cannot be compelled to undergo medical examination, from his refusal to undergo medical examination the Court can definitely draw adverse inference. Though the medical Board was constituted on two occasions and though the respondent had offered his co-operation to be examined by the Board, he did not appear before the Board on both the occasions. It is true that the onus to prove that the marriage was not consummated on account of respondent's impotency is not on the respondent but squarely on the appellant. Nevertheless the respondent cannot play hide and seek game against the attempt of the appellant to prove her case by adducing expert evidence. Impotency of the respondent can be successfully proved by obtaining the expert opinion of a team of doctors after examining him. It is indeed difficult to prove impotency by oral evidence. Sole evidence of the appellant is likely to be characterised as interested. Impotency of the respondent can be successfully proved by obtaining the expert opinion of a team of doctors after examining him. It is indeed difficult to prove impotency by oral evidence. Sole evidence of the appellant is likely to be characterised as interested. To avoid the same the appellant sought the help of the Court to adduce the best evidence before it. This has been successfully thwarted by the respondent. In such a case adverse inference has necessarily to be drawn by the Court. In Mitra v. Mitra (AIR 1971 Calcutta 1) the Court held that refusal to undergo medical examination can definitely lead to the inference in favour of the appellant who has asserted impotency on the part of the respondent. Impotency has to be proved before a Court of Law to get an order that the marriage is a nullity. It can be proved by evidence. Or from proved facts this can be inferred. In T. Rangaswami v. T. Aravindammal (AIR 1957 Madras 243) Ramaswami, J. held thus: "To prove impotency there is no minimum standard of proof necessary. Even uncorroborated testimony of the petitioner is sufficient if it can be believed." P.W.6's evidence shows that at the time of marriage respondent was impotent and he continued to be so thereafter. As this evidence is not challenged in cross-examination and as the respondent did not adduce any rebuttal evidence and as he kept away from the Medical Board thus preventing the Court from ascertaining the truth of the allegation of impotency, the Court can infer that the positive evidence of impotence alleged by the appellant is true. From the evidence and attendant circumstances of the case we hold that the appellant has succeeded in establishing that the respondent was impotent at the time of marriage and continued to be so at the time of institution of the petition thereby entitling her to the grant of a decree of divorce. The marriage between the appellant and respondent is hereby declared as null and void. The petition stands allowed. The M.F.A. is allowed. No costs.