M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the husband's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28-11-1989 made in mc. No. 13/1984 on the file of the learned civil judge at raichur rejecting his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') refusing to annul the marriage solemnised between him and his wife (respondent in the court-below as well as in this court) on 31-5-1982 at a village in raichur district. ( 2 ) HE presented the petition setting out a series of facts leading to the solemnisation of his marriage with respondent and further alleging that the respondent was a sick lady suffering from mitral stenosys which rendered her incompetent to have sexual intercourse and that he was kept in dark by tbe respondent's parents and her marriage which was never consummated: he further asserted that he gave tbe best of treatment possible at raichur to her and thereafter tbe respondent left the family on 10-10-1983 and did not come back. In that circumstance, be alleged tbat all efforts made by him to bring her back to his family and failed and all the monies spent by him for her treatment had gone waste. Having regard to tbe refusal of the respondent to have sexual intercourse with him and ber inability to consummate the marriage he prayed for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. ( 3 ) THE petition was resisted by tbe respondent denying tbat her ailment had anything to do with the sexual relationship and that it could not be a ground for divorce. She pleaded that she was treated at k. e. m hospital at Bombay as an in patient from 30-3-1984 to 29-8-1984 and she was cured of the disease shown in tbe certificate. She asserted that she was healthy and was capable of leading normal sexual life. She further alleged that the petitioner, her husband, was addicted to bad habits and he was a womaniscr and since the time of her marriage, be ill-treated ber; that he threw her out of the bouse in the month of January at the instance of his sister-in-law who was ill-treating her; that she was always ready and willing to lead a normal life with her busband and ber marriage had been consummated. She therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition: ( 4 ) ON such pleadings, the court-below framed the following points for consideration:-1. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent treated him with cruelty by not affording any chance to lead sexual intercourse as alleged in the petition? 2. Whether there has been any unnecessary or improper delay on the part of the petitioner in instituting the present proceedings? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce? On all the points, the court held against the petitioner (appellant before us ). ( 5 ) MOST of the facts are not in dispute. The question was whether there was refusal on the part of the respondent to have sexual intercourse with her husband and consummate the marriage; whether she was incompetent to have such sexual intercourse on account of her ailment, ( 6 ) THE dictionary meaning of mitral stenosys indicates that it is an ailment of the heart involving the valves and no more. There was no evidence adduced by the petitioner as to how that ailment ever came in the way of his having sexual intercourse except his own testimony that the respondent refused coitus. Beyond that, there was no other evidence. The only other witness in support of the petitioner's case was his own father. His evidence did not in any way assist the petitioner particularly in view of the fact, the respondent having alleged that the entire family had conspired to throw her out of the house. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, the respondent entered the witness box herself and unequivocally stated that she had sexual intercourse with her husband. It was not correct to suggest that there was no sexual intercourse between herself and her husband. She further deposed that an uncle of her husband had intentions of giving his daughter in marriage to the petitioner and therefore had brought about the misunderstanding so that in the event of divorce being given by the court, there was no impediment for his daughter to marry her husband. She also alleged that her husband was carrying on with a colleague of his in his office. She on oath asserted that she was ever willing to go back to her husband's house and resume her normal duties as a married woman towards the family as well as her husband. She also alleged that her husband was carrying on with a colleague of his in his office. She on oath asserted that she was ever willing to go back to her husband's house and resume her normal duties as a married woman towards the family as well as her husband. ( 8 ) IT was also in the evidence of p. w-2, the doctor in the raichur hospital who was examined by the petitioner himself who had categorically expressed the opinion that she was suffering from mitral stenosys which did not come in the way of her having normal sexual intercourse and that it was of a minor nature and not a severe or serious type and further having regard to the fact that the petition was presented in 1984 long after the alleged departure of the respondent from the house of the petitioner on 10-10-1983, the court-below came to dismiss the petition. ( 9 ) IN this court after having issued notice re-admission, on 9-3-1990, parties we redirected to appear in person so that this court may bring about a rapprochement and compromise between the spouses. On 11-7-1990, in the chambers of one of us, we met the parties and we did our best to pursuade the appellant-petitioner to take back his wife who, to us, looked to be quite normal. She did not gives us the impression that she was incapable of having sexual intercourse for whatever reason with her husband. The appellant-husband was adamant and unwilling to yield. He pleaded misery as his marriage had not been consummated and therefore divorce may be granted to him in order to free him of his suffering. Having regard to the attitude and the evidence on record, we had no choice but to accept failure to bring about a rapprochement or compromise between the spouses. ( 10 ) ON carefully analysing the evidence led by parties in the court-below, we are of the opinion that there was nothing which proved the inability of the respondent to have sexual intercourse with her husband. On the other hand, we had the assertion by the respondent that her marriage with her husband - appellant/petitioner - was indeed consummated and that she had fulfilled her obligations as a married woman to her husband. On the other hand, we had the assertion by the respondent that her marriage with her husband - appellant/petitioner - was indeed consummated and that she had fulfilled her obligations as a married woman to her husband. Beyond making suggestions to the contrary in the cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited or no serious challenge to her assertions were made. ( 11 ) IN fact it was open to the petitioner to lead medical evidence specifically in regard to whether the respondent had at any time was subjected to sexual intercourse which would have proved at least one thing, that she had or had not sexual intercourse and whether she was capable of having such intercourse. Petitioner having failed to do that but having relied entirely on his interested testimony and the doctor's evidence which was not entirely in his favour, the court-below was right in rejecting the petition. ( 12 ) WE see from the Provisions contained under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, "inability to have sexual intercourse" by itself is not a ground for divorce. The attempt made by the petitioner was to bring it under Section 13 (1a), cruelty, he having failed to prove such cruelty, he was certainly not entitled to the annulment of the marriage. ( 13 ) THEREFORE, we concur with the findings of the trial court and dismiss the appeal as being devoid of merit at the stage of admission but after notice and after hearing the counsel for parties and in the circumstances narrated by us in regard to our efforts to bring about a rapprochement or compromise. ( 14 ) ORDER accordingly. No order as to costs in this court. --- *** --- .