Judgment :- 1. The Appellant herein is the wife of the respondent. The parties are Indian Christians and they got married at Gobichettipalayam on 9.2.1984. Admittedly, they lived together only for a short duration. The respondent husband instituted I.D.O.P. No. 116 of 1985, in the District Court, Erode against the appellant under S. 32 of the Indian Divorce Act for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that the wife without informing him went away to her parents house and she did not return in spite of the issuance of Ex. A.1. notice on 20.2.1985. The present appellant resisted that application contending that she lived with the respondent herein only for about three months. By reason of his impotency and malformation of genital organ the respondent is legally incompetent to enter into the contract of marriage. The marriage between them is null and void. Because of inferiority complex the husband illtreated her both physically and mentally. The respondent did fingering in her private parts and acted beastly. He scolded her in filthy language and beat her severely. He even attempted to throw her into a well. 2. The wife also filed I.D.O.P. No. 14 of 1986 under S. 18 of the Indian Divorce Act to declare the marriage between them as null and void on the ground that the respondent is impotent. 3. Both the claims of the wife did not find favour with the trial court. While O.P. No. 144 of 1985 was dismissed, O.P. No. 116 of 1985 was allowed and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed directing the wife to go and live with her husband. The parties were ordered to bear respective cost in both the applications. These C.M. As are directed against the said orders. 4. The respondent as R.W. 1 speaks about the failure of her marital life. She deposes that even on the date of the marriage her husband was unable to have sexual intercourse with her. She found that his male organ was only of little finger size. Because of his impotency, her marriage was not consummated either on that day or on any subsequent day. On the next day, he behaved like a beast, removed her garments and pressed his finger into her genital organ. The same kind of torture continued every night. He even tried to push her into a well. Because of his impotency, her marriage was not consummated either on that day or on any subsequent day. On the next day, he behaved like a beast, removed her garments and pressed his finger into her genital organ. The same kind of torture continued every night. He even tried to push her into a well. One day, he threw her away from the house. So she left for her parents house taking her clothes and other articles. On the other hand, the respondent as P.W. 1 denied that he is impotent. According to him, his wife lived with him for only 2 1/2 months since marriage. Thereafter she left for her parents house. Though he had been to Gobichettipalayam and called her on many occasions she did not turn up. Even in the panchayat she refused to come and live with him. R.W. 2 Gurupatham, merely states that on 9.2.1985 there was a panchayat wherein both the spouses claimed for divorce. But no finality was reached in the panchayat talks. The evidence of P.W. 3 Iyyadurai is also to the effect that no finality was reached in the panchayat. They versions of these two witnesses are not of much help to us. 5. Learned District Judge has negatived the claim of the appellant mainly on the ground that she has not chosen to write any letter to her parents complaining about the impotency of her husband. According to him if really the husband was unable to consummate the marriage certainly the wife would have written about it to her parents. But as pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant when Ex. A.1. notice dated 20.2.1985 was issued by the husband stating that after living with him for two months, the wife left for parents house without reasonable excuse, the appellant had sent Ex. A.2. reply notice stating at the earliest possible opportunity that the respondent was unable to have sexual intercourse with her. Besides her evidence is to the effect that when her parents came in her house, she told them that her husband was impotent. It is unlikely that in our country a newly married girl would write to her parents on such matters. Since the parents are visiting their daughter, there is nothing uncommon in her revealing the matter to them during one such visit. It is unlikely that in our country a newly married girl would write to her parents on such matters. Since the parents are visiting their daughter, there is nothing uncommon in her revealing the matter to them during one such visit. Further R.W. 2 Gurupatham deposes that in the panchayat the wife complained that she could not live with the respondent since he is impotent. But significantly enough P.W. 3 Ayyadurai who also speaks about the panchayat does not whsiper as to what was the cause of misunderstanding between the spouses. This would indicate that in all likelihood the contention of the appellant is true. 6. The trial court relied on the evidence of P.W. 2 District Medical Officer, Erode, who has examined the husband pursuant to the directions of the court in coming to the conclusion that the husband was potent. P.W. 2 Doctor deposes that the respondent was admitted as an in-patient in the hospital on 19.11.1985 and discharged on 27.11.1985. His examination revealed that the respondent had all the characteristic of a man. His genital organ was also normal. There was no bodily defect preventing him from having sexual intercourse with his wife, Ex. A3 is the communication dated 2.12.1985 addressed by him to the court. This reads that in the opinion of the Doctor, there is nothing to suggest that the respondent is not capable of sexual intercourse as he is healthy normal individual. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even P.W. 2 Doctor admits in cross-examination that a man might be impotent with a particular individual while he may be normal with other women. So it is seen that on certain occasions, a man might behave with his wife as an impotent person. When a person has no desire or affection towards his wife, he may not have erection during intercourse. The incapacity or inability of the respondent to consummate the marriage is one pattern of impotence. The fact that the medical examination shows no constitutional defect in the organ of the husband will not eclipse the proved and established fact that the husband was unable to perform the sexual act at the relevant time. The incapacity or inability of the respondent to consummate the marriage is one pattern of impotence. The fact that the medical examination shows no constitutional defect in the organ of the husband will not eclipse the proved and established fact that the husband was unable to perform the sexual act at the relevant time. In Ushman v. Inderjit (A.I.R. 1977 Punjab and Haryana 97) it has been held that in matrimonial cases, impotency of the husband has been understood as meaning his incapacity to consummate the marriage or to have conjugal intercourse which is one of the objects of the marriage. Sterile person need not necessarily be impotent. In some cases, however, a person may be sterile as well as impotent. Further, impotency may be due to a temporary absence of desire for sexual intercourse, timidity, sexual overindulgence or other psychological reasons. Cases are known where a male behaves like a normal potent person qua one woman and yet he may not be able to have sexual intercourse with another woman. So, even though the respondent may have all the characteristic of a normal potent man, yet the possibility of his inability to have conjugal relationship with the appellant on account of some aversion could not be ruled out. 7. The trial court also relied on the failure of the appellant to undergo medical examination to prove her virginity in holding that the husband was not impotent. There is no dispute that the marriage is not yet consummated. The respondent nowhere expressly admits either in his pleadings or in evidence that he ever had sexual intercourse with his wife. So this factor that the respondent was not willing to subject herself to medical examination cannot be a ground for holding that the marriage has been consummated. A womans hymen may be ruptured from a vareity of causes, though she may in truth be a virgin and a woman would not run the risk of an adverse inference and a possible blot on her if the hymen was found ruptured. The failure to produce that negative evidence should not therefore have weighed with the trial judge. 8. It is significant to bear in mind, that in a case like this, the evidence of the other spouse assumes importance. Impotency of the other spouse assumes importance. Impotency can be due to psychological inhabition or physical incapacity. The failure to produce that negative evidence should not therefore have weighed with the trial judge. 8. It is significant to bear in mind, that in a case like this, the evidence of the other spouse assumes importance. Impotency of the other spouse assumes importance. Impotency can be due to psychological inhabition or physical incapacity. However in either case the standard of proof required is not different. Where the wife applies for divorce and the husband remains absent and there is no collusion, the wifes evidence must be tested in the light of probabilities and conduct of the parties. Therefore, the only question the court has to ask itself in dealing with such a situation is whether the evidence before it inspires confidence. If there is no collusion, then the veracity of the witness can be judged by the usual tests such as the probabilities of the story, the conduct of the parties before and during litigation, the manner in which the party has given evidence in the court and such other factors as bent on the honesty, truthfulness and reliability of a witness. If the evidence is reliable and can be safely acted upon, there is no impediment in law for the court acting upon it though it is of an interested party. The essential ingredient of impotency is the incapacity for accomplishing the act of sexual intercourse. This incapacity may arise either from a structural defect in the genital organs which is incurable and renders complete sexual intercourse impracticable from some incurable mental or moral disability vis-a-vis the other spouse resulting in inability to consummate the marriage. Whether impotency is due to psychological inhibition or physical disability it does not make any difference in principle on the question of the standard of proof required. And there is no rule of law requiring that in a dispute like this, the evidence of the spouse must receive indepedent corroboration before it can be accepted, as sufficient to justify the passing of a decree. Section 134, Evidence Act embodies the principle that sufficiency of evidence is not a matter of number or quantity but of quality, the need for corroboration arises not because the evidence is of an interested person but because the evidence of the party is such as does not inspire confidence. Section 134, Evidence Act embodies the principle that sufficiency of evidence is not a matter of number or quantity but of quality, the need for corroboration arises not because the evidence is of an interested person but because the evidence of the party is such as does not inspire confidence. The rules of evidence are not different in these cases than elsewhere and there is no minimum standard of proof necessary. In cases of pyschological inhibition the impotency arising from that fact would be within the exclusive knowledge of the spouses and it will be difficult to test by medical evidence. In this case the evidence of R.W. 1 on the inability of her husband to consummate the marriage and the consequential illtreatment on account of his inferiority complex bears a ring of truth. So the finding of the trial judge are unsustainable. Instead, the facts herein clearly esatblish that the respondent was impotent at the time of marriage and at the time of institution of this action as stated in S. 19(1) of the Indian Divorce Act. 9. In the result the appeals are allowed. The Judgment and decretal orders of learned District Judge in I.D.O.P. Nos. 144 and 116 of 1985 are set aside. I.D.C.P. No. 116 of 1985 is dismissed. I.D.O.P. No. 144 of 1985 is allowed and the marriage between the parties is declared null and void under S. 18 of the Indian Divorce Act. Parties are to bear their respective cost throughout.