Judgment :- Kamat, J. By this appeal the judgment dated June 9, 1993 of the learned District Judge, Kottayam dismissing the petition of the appellant husband under S.19(1) and (3) of the Indian Divorce Act for declaration of nullity of marriage on two grounds, namely, that the respondent wife was impotent at the time of the marriage and that the respondent was a lunatic at the time of her marriage, is brought under challenge. 2. We nave been taken through the evidence on record and the material pleadings. 3. The parties are Indian Christians and undisputedly are governed by the provisions of Indian Divorce Act. They were married on May 26,1986 at Thekkady. Both are capable and educated. The husband is a Branch Manager, Civil Supplies Corporation, Kanjikuzhy branch whereas the wife is also a graduate and works as an Assistant in the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Kottayam. It was an arranged marriage and even then gave bitter experience leading to the present appellant's petition as stated above. 4. During the course of the proceedings, when examination of the petitioner husband was in progress, an application by him praying for medical examination of both the petitioner as well as the respondent by I. A.No.1522 of 1991. By order e the said application a medical board was constituted from the department of gynecology, Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. The order to this effect was passed from November 14, 1991 directing both the parties to appear for the said medical examination to ascertain counter allegations as regards potency. The record shows that the respondent wife objected to the said application, seriously and strenuously contending that she is fully capable and potent and the allegation in regard thereto arc baseless and malafide. In spite of these objections denying the allegations of the appellant/ petitioner, the fact remains and it is so recorded by the learned judge, in para.6 of the impugned judgment in the following manner: - "The proceedings in the above petition would disclose that though the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board consisting of a Psychiatrist and Urologist and he was examined by the Medical Board, the respondent refused to appear before the Medical Board and submit herself to a medical examination." 5. After this examination the proceedings continued further, when one of the members of the medical board who had examined the appellant and issued a report (Ext. After this examination the proceedings continued further, when one of the members of the medical board who had examined the appellant and issued a report (Ext. A1) was also examined. The respondent wife examined herself without any documentary evidence on record. The learned judge, in para. 12 of the impugned judgment has clearly observed as follows: "One is the impotency of the respondent and the other case that she was lunatic at the time of her marriage and continued to be so which contributed to the impotency of the respondent. But it may be noted that though the petitioner made an allegation that his wife the respondent was a lunatic prior to the marriage, at the time of the marriage and continued to be so thereafter, the petitioner had not pressed the said ground as evidenced by the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the petition itself dated 27-5-1993." Thus it would be seen that as the appellant did not press the ground of lunacy, the only ground left for the learned judge's consideration was of potency. The learned judge had held that this ground is not established. 6. In our judgment the conclusion of the learned judge is legally erroneous. 7. The undisputed fact is that the respondent wife did not submit to the medical examination even after the order of the learned judge on application I.A. 1522/91. 8. Impotency means incapacity or inability for normal cohabitation. Such incapacity or inability may be on account of several factors. Impotency is the lack of ability to perform full and complete sexual intercourse. When this aspect is sought to be established and proved by a party to the matrimonial litigation, medical examination of parties to the marriage is one of the known methods for establishing such allegations. Although it is true that a party cannot be compelled to undergo medical examination from a medical board constituted under the valid order of the Court, a refusal by one of the parties to undergo medical examination has its own situation in the consequence of inference. Factually the situation gets much more fortified if the other party submits to such medical examination and clears it with flying colours. On facts it is to be noted that the appellant after submitting to the medical examination has been certified to be a man of capacity and ability in regard to normal cohabitation. Factually the situation gets much more fortified if the other party submits to such medical examination and clears it with flying colours. On facts it is to be noted that the appellant after submitting to the medical examination has been certified to be a man of capacity and ability in regard to normal cohabitation. 9. The Court in such a situation is placed with a set of allegation and its counter; parties accusing each other as impotent. As a result of the report of the medical examination the court is armed with a factual proof that one of the parties is established as capable and able for normal cohabitation and it is in this situation the Court has its own attitude to the game of hide and seek attempted to be played by one of the parties to the litigation, in not submitting for the medical examination. The Court appreciates that when one of the parties attempts to seek the help of the Court to tender the best evidence before the Court, an attempt by the other party to thwart this sincere approach has its own consequences in law. 10. In such a situation the Court is within its powers to consider the conduct of the party refusing to submit to the medical examination, be enough to draw what is known as adverse inference out of the situation. In other words the court proceeds to reason out the situation that had such a party appeared for examination its result would have been against her. This would be the essence of adverse inference. By reluctance or refusal the Court gets fortified to draw such an inference that the respondent (wife) would have been proved to be impotent as a result of the medical examination. This is the situation provided by illustration (g) to S.114 of the Evidence Act that the evidence which could be and is not produced, would if produced, be unfavourable tothe person who withholds it. The inevitable inference would be that the medical report would certainly have been against the respondent (wife). The learned counsel fortified this conclusion by pointing out the decision of this Court (Sheeba Daniel v. Alexander -1989(1) KLT 405), a judgment of the Division Bench to which one of us (Pareed Pillay J.) was not only a party but the judgment was delivered by him on behalf of the Bench, taking the same view. The learned counsel fortified this conclusion by pointing out the decision of this Court (Sheeba Daniel v. Alexander -1989(1) KLT 405), a judgment of the Division Bench to which one of us (Pareed Pillay J.) was not only a party but the judgment was delivered by him on behalf of the Bench, taking the same view. 11. Non-appearance before the medical board, and a contention that the respondent (wife) was able and capable for normal cohabitation, would not lead to any other inference as an inevitable situation. 12. Having gone through the entire impugned judgment this legal situation does not appear to have been adverted to, although, as stated above in para.5 (quoted above) refusal of the respondent wife to appear before the medical board is writ large as recorded-in the judgment. 13. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal stands allowed. Impugned judgment dated June 9,1993 of the learned District Judge, Kottayam in O.P.(Div.)No.12 of 1990 gets quashed and set aside. The petition for declaration that the marriage between the appellant petitioner and the respondent as null and void on the ground that the respondent was impotent at the time of marriage is granted and consequently the marriage is declared as nullity. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.