Judgment :- Srinivasan, J. The I.D.O.P.No.26 of 1990 was filed by the respondent for divorce under Sec. 18 read with Sec.l9(l) of the Indian Divorce Act. The petitioner married the respondent on 33. 1986. Both of them were living together till the second week of July, 1989, but the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was not consummated. The case of the petitioner is that whenever the petitioner approached the respondent with the intention of having marital company, the respondent became hysterical, threw tantrums and refused to have sexual relationship with the petitioner, that when the petitioner advised the respondent to get medical advice, the respondent refused to see any doctor, that she did not also give any reason to refuse marital company with the petitioner, and that therefore the petitioner had to conclude that the respondent is physically impotent and to presume she is incapable of having sexual intercourse with the petitioner. In July, 1989, she deserted the petitioner and went away to Madras. The petitioner after waiting for some time sent a notice on 111. 1989 to the respondent. She sent a reply to the said notice under Ex.A-3, dated 30.11.1989. In the reply notice Ex.A-3, the respondent has stated that she accepts all the accusations against her and that it is open to the petitioner to file legal proceedings for nullity of the marriage. 2. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner was obliged to file the petition for declaring the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent as null and void. The respondent remained ex parte. The petitioner has given evidence in support of his claim. He has spoken to the effect that the marriage between him and the respondent was solemnized, that the respondent refused to have sexual intercourse with him, that from the date of marriage, till July, 1989 they lived together, that the marriage was not consummated, and that even though the petitioner suggested that the respondent should come and see a doctor for medical check-up, the respondent refused to seek medical advice. The petitioner has filed three exhibits including the notice issued by him to the respondent and the reply notice sent by the respondent to the petitioner. Accepting the evidence of the petitioner, the learned District Judge granted a decree declaring the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent to be null and void. 3. The petitioner has filed three exhibits including the notice issued by him to the respondent and the reply notice sent by the respondent to the petitioner. Accepting the evidence of the petitioner, the learned District Judge granted a decree declaring the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent to be null and void. 3. The decree has come up before us for confirmation today. It has been held in M.Koilpillai v. Kannammal, A.I.R. 1970 Mad. 237, that impotency is not necessarily to be confined to the physical inability of one or the other of the spouse to have sexual intercourse. It may, cover also such a condition either of the mind or of the physical condition of the person, which renders normal sexual intercourse impracticable so as to reach its completion. The basis of the court’s interference is not the structural defect, but the impracticability of consummation. Disability arising from mental or normal causes is sufficient. 4. In this case, the test prescribed by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision referred to above is satisfied. We find that the evidence of the petitioner is sufficient to hold that the respondent is impotent. In the circumstances, the decree declaring the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent to be null and void is confirmed. There will be no order as to costs.