JUDGMENT - M.L. DUDHAT, J.:---This first appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 30th November, 1991 passed by the Family Court at Pune in P.A. No. 600 of 1990. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the Family Court at Pune dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-wife for dissolution of marriage under sections 18 and 19 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, more particularly, on the ground that the respondent-husband was impotent at the time of marriage and at the time of institution of the suit. 2.Few facts which are material from the point of view of dismissal of this appeal are as under: It is the case of the petitioner-wife that she was Captain and respondent was a Doctor. They were married according to Christian religion at Calcutta on 19th November, 1989. The said marriage, according to the petitioner, was an arranged marriage. After the marriage, they went to honeymoon at Mahableshwar for a period of four days. However, during the period of Honeymoon, she had no sexual contact with the respondent-husband. According to her, there is a defect in the respondent's male organ, due to which he is impotent. She has further contended that during the course of her marital life, there was no sexual contact between the petitioner and the respondent till the date of filing of the divorce petition. On the other hand, respondent-husband by his written-statement, though, admitted the marriage having been performed according to the Christian religion, he denied that there was no sexual contact between the petitioner-wife and himself. He denied the allegation made by the appellant-wife to the effect that he was impotent. He has also denied all other allegations, such as that petitioner-wife has suffered physical and mental cruelty at his hands. At this stage, we may observe that after filing of the aforesaid written-statement, the respondent-husband, by adding para 14 to his written-statement, the respondent-husband, apart from making the allegation against the petitioner-wife that she was leading an adulterious life, he also stated that because of the bad behaviour on the part of the petitioner-wife, her adulterious life, tremendous mental and physical tension suffered by the respondent, he could not perform sexual intercourse with his wife. He has also stated that the said impotency of the respondent-husband is only relative impotency towards the petitioner-wife only. He has also stated that the said impotency of the respondent-husband is only relative impotency towards the petitioner-wife only. The said amendment application (Exhibit 20) made by the respondent-husband was granted by the Family Court on 11th January, 1991. There was, it appears, another application vide Exhibit 21 filed by the respondent-husband stating in it that he had made the application Exhibit 20 in haste and, therefore, the same be cancelled. On the said application, no order is passed by the learned Family Court and, therefore, as the record of the case stands, only the amendment application filed by the respondent-husband on 11-1-1991 is granted by the Family Court and till today there is no order passed by the Family Court to cancel the same. 3.After considering the rival contentions and after scanning the evidence, the Family Court held that, respondent-husband is not impotent. It also held that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was consummated and, therefore, held that the appellant is not entitled to get the decree of nullity under sections 18 and 19 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869. It is this judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, which is the subject-matter of this first appeal before us. 4.At this stage, we also wish to mention that after the dismissal of the aforesaid petition filed by the wife, respondent-husband also filed Marriage Petition No. 1 of 1992 before the District Court, Pune. The said petition was filed by the respondent-husband for divorce under section 10 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 i.e. on the ground that the appellant-wife was guilty of incestuous adultery with respondent No. 2 in that petition viz. Om Prakash Sharma, a retired Military Officer. The said petition was resisted by the wife. However, the trial Court, in that petition, allowed that petition. The trial District Court allowed that petition of the respondent-husband herein and passed a decree of divorce, as prayed for by the petitioner-husband in that petition, and the said decree passed by the District Court has also come up before us for confirmation as required under section 20 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869. 5.We will first deal with First Appeal No. 72 of 1992. 5.We will first deal with First Appeal No. 72 of 1992. In this case, it appears that the Family Court, while deciding the issue of impotency, firstly, relied upon the medical certificate granted to the respondent-husband by a hospital in the U.S.A. The said medical certificate was issued by the Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation. In the said medical certificate, it is mentioned : "subjective complaint by wife of impotency with no clinical abnormalities by history per patent. The patient was reassured that his physical examination and laboratory testing and his clinical history revealed no evidence for impotency or sexual dysfunction." Secondly, the trial Court also relied on certain portions of the letter addressed by the appellant-wife to her husband wherein she refers to the fact that she had missed her M.C. i.e. menses for sometime. According to our opinion, the trial Court, while coming to the conclusion on the issue of impotency, has erred in not taking into consideration certain relevant evidence which is on record. Apart from the deposition of appellant, she has also relied upon certain letters received by her from the respondent-husband. If one goes through the letter at Exhibit 28, it appears that the said letter was written with a guilty mind. In that letter he expresses his sorrow for whatever had happened between them and has requested the appellant-wife that the matter should remain between them only and it should not be conveyed even to her family members. According to him, there is no need to create tension in the minds of her family members and the Lord will give them strength to endure the turbulence. In the said letter, he has also mentioned that after the marriage, in order to get relief from the tension and burden on his mind, he had tried a lot. Otherwise, he would have gone mad. He has also referred to the fact that he could imagine the agony the petitioner-wife might be undergoing and that if she loved him and cared about him, then she can bear it. He further stated with the question mark as to whether he was asking too much from her. He also stated that sometimes he feels as to why he really got himself married and that now he had got married with petitioner, what he has given to her, except sorrow, grief, pain and separation. He further stated with the question mark as to whether he was asking too much from her. He also stated that sometimes he feels as to why he really got himself married and that now he had got married with petitioner, what he has given to her, except sorrow, grief, pain and separation. He has also stated that he hopes that she would understand him. In the aforesaid letter Exhibit 28 though there is no clear-cut admission by the respondent-husband, but still the aforesaid letter clearly indicates that because of something lacking in the respondent, dishormony between the respondent and the appellant-wife had crept into their lives. This letter affords somewhat corroboration to what the appellant-wife has stated in her petition and deposition before the trial Court. However, this corroboration by itself would not have led us anywhere but for the application on oath made by the respondent-husband in the present case to the trial Court for the amendment of the written-statement. The said application is dated 11th January, 1991 made by the respondent-husband wherein he stated that he intends to amend para 14 of the written-statement filed by him. The said amendment, which he intended to carry out, was to the effect that even prior to the marriage, the appellant-wife was leading an adulterious life. He has further stated that because of her adulterious life, tremendous mental and physical tension was suffered by him and, therefore, he could not perform sexual intercourse with her. He has also stated that the said impotency was only relative impotency towards the petitioner-wife only and for any other woman, he is not impotent. The aforesaid application for amendment of the written-statement, which is at Exhibit 20, was allowed by the trial Court by his order dated 11th January, 1991 after hearing both the sides. We may place it on record that immediately on the next day i.e. on 12th January, 1991 respondent had made another application to the Court stating therein that the application for amendment made by him on the earlier day i.e. on 11th January, 1991 was made by him under mental tension as he intended to leave for U.S.A. and, therefore, he had put up certain damaging and false information and since that come to his notice, he has made the present application for cancelling the said amendment. 6.From the record, it appears that the Court has not passed any order on the said second application. On the contrary, in the judgment, in para four, the learned Judge has referred to both these applications which are at Exhibits 20 and 21 and there is nothing on record to show that the aforesaid amendment application at Exhibit 20 was cancelled by the order of the Court. Apart from that, according to our opinion, the said application Exhibit 20 for amendment was made by the respondent-husband and in the said application the respondent has stated that because of the adulterious behaviour of his wife, he received mental shock and, therefore, he was suffering from relative impotency i.e. though in relation to the petitioner, the respondent was impotent, still he is not imponent vis-a-vis to any third woman. If one tries to understand the aforesaid statement made by respondent in the said application at Exhibit 20 in context with certain averments in his letter at Exhibit 28, it appears that respondent was relatively impotent in relation to his wife, the appellant herein. It might be that because of some information which he received, he developed the aforesaid relative impotency. If one keeps the aforesaid claim of relative impotency in one's mind, on the basis of inference derived by us from Exhibits 21 and 28, the said case of relative impotency cannot be destroyed by the medical certificate from U.S.A. produced by the respondent, because in the case of relative impotency a male person may be impotent vis-a-vis his wife, though he may not be impotent vis-a-vis to any other woman and, therefore, such type of impotency could not have been revealed in the certificate, which respondent has relied upon to prove his case. According to our opinion, had the trial Court understood the case of the appellant-wife in the background of the contents of the letter which is at Exhibit 28 read with the contents of the amendment application, the trial Court would have come to a finding that though from medical point of view, the respondent-husband was not impotent, but he was impotent vis-a-vis his wife, the appellant herein. In view of the contentions of the wife that since she could not cohabit with her husband due to the relative impotency on his part, in our opinion, she is justified in claiming the relief of divorce on the ground of "relative impotency" on the part of her husband, the respondent herein. 7.Now, in this case, it is an admitted position that the relationship of the appellant and the respondent has irretrievably broken and there are no chances of their coming together and enjoy the matrimonial life once again. It is also an admitted position that both the appellant and respondent want divorce and put an end to the matrimonial alliance. The only difference is that the appellant-wife wants to put an end to the matrimonial relationship on the ground of impotency on the part of the respondent-husband, while the respondent-husband wants to put an end to the matrimonial relationship on the ground of adultery on the part of the wife, the appellant. Taking an overall view of the matter, according to our opinion, it is desirable to put an end to this incompatible relationship of this husband and wife to avoid further mental agony to both the parties. Since both the parties want to separate, if the divorce on the ground of relative impotency is granted, there will be no stigma attached either to respondent-husband or to the appellant-wife and in view of the fact that appellant's petition for nullity of the marriage being earlier in point of time, there is no need to confirm the decree of divorce under section 20 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, as granted by the District Court on the ground of adultery on the part of the appellant-wife. Hence, taking an over all view of the matter, we are allowing the appeal filed by the appellant and set aside the judgment and decree dated 30th November, 1991 passed by the Family Court, Pune in P.A. No. 600 of 1990 and pass decree of divorce under sections 18 and 19(1) on the ground of relative impotency of the respondent-husband and declare that the marriage solemnized between the appellant and respondent is a nullity. There shall be no order as to costs. There shall be no order as to costs. 8.As regards the judgment and decree passed by the Court of District Judge at Pune in Marriage Petition No. 1 of 1992 granting divorce to petitioner against respondent on the ground of adultery and which has come before us for confirmation, in view of the judgment and decree passed by us in Family Court Appeal No. 72 of 1992, the said judgment and decree passed in Marriage Petition No. 1 of 1992 passed by the District Judge, Pune, has become infructuous and, therefore, is set aside, accordingly. Appeal allowed. *