This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.86 passed by the Additional District Judge. Jorhat in Divorce Title Suit No.2 of 1985. By the impugned judgment the learned Judge decreed the suit by holding that a decree of nullity be passed in regard to the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant. 2. Both the parties are Hindus and the parties got married in the month of April. 1979. Sometime, after the marriage, the husband came to know that his wife, the respondent did not attend puberity and that the respondent was not physically developed and matured as a full grown female person. It is stated that her breast and pubic region including vaginal cervix and genital tract did not form and develop by natural process. It is alleged that this absence of formation made sexual intercourse impossible and impracticable. It is alleged that no sexual intercourse took place between the husband and the wife and the marriage was not consumated. Hence this application for nullity of marriage was filed in the year 1982. 3. The wife filed a written statement and she denied all the allegations made and she further stated that this suit was not maintainable and stated that a maintenance proceeding was filed wherein she obtained a decree of maintenance at the rate of Rs.70/- per month it has been raised to Rs.200/- per month by this Court in this particular case on 6.4.87). The wife was medically examined by a Gynaecologist of Jorhat and the report is as follows : "She is thinly built woman of about 36 years of age in her late productive period. Her breasts are undeveloped with scanty axillary hairs and abundant pubic hairs. The sign and shape of her vulve appears to be normal, but the vaginal cana is shallow with underdeveloped (small) uterus, size of the overies could not be determined." 4. Other witnesses were examined but to sort out this point urged in the appeal save and except the medical evidence, the other relevant evidence is the evidence of husband and wife, the other evidence is absolutely irrelevant. Importance will be within the exclusive knowledge of the spouses, the only other evidence will be medical evidence. Other witnesses were examined but to sort out this point urged in the appeal save and except the medical evidence, the other relevant evidence is the evidence of husband and wife, the other evidence is absolutely irrelevant. Importance will be within the exclusive knowledge of the spouses, the only other evidence will be medical evidence. The trial Court on consideration of the materials of record came to the finding mat the wife is impotent and because of the impotency the marriage could not be consumated. The Doctor was examined as PW 2 and he deposed, inter alia, as follows : "Normal and usual sexual intercourse is not possible, but it can be done only by mutual adjustment." He further deposed that "he is not sure if the defect in the private parts of the wife can be cured in due course." On the basis of this evidence of the Doctor, the trial Court arrived at the finding that the wife was impotent and the suit was decreed as indicated above. In AIR 1970 SC 137 (Yuvraj Digvijoy Singh vs. Yuvrani Pratap Kumari) the Supreme Court has pointed what is impotency (that is before amendment of 1976) and that is as follows : "A party is impotent if his or her mental or physical condition makes consumation of the marriage a practical impossibility. The condition must be one, according to the statute, which existed at the time of marriage and continued to be so until the institution of the proceedings. In order to entitle the appellant to obtain a decree of nullity, as prayed for by him, he will have to establish that his wife, respondent, was impotent at the time of the marriage and continued to be so until the institution of the proceedings." 5. The Doctor in the case in hand specifically deposed that normal and usual sexual intercourse with the wife is not practically possible. So this matter is squarely covered by the interpretation of impotency as given by the Apex Court in AIR 1970 SC 137 (supra). The Doctor in the case in hand specifically deposed that normal and usual sexual intercourse with the wife is not practically possible. So this matter is squarely covered by the interpretation of impotency as given by the Apex Court in AIR 1970 SC 137 (supra). In AIR 1982 Bombay 406, the Bombay High Court had to consider section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act as amended and there the Bombay High Court considered a Full Bench judgment of Madras High Court reported in AIR 1954 Madras 316 (K. Balavendram vs. S. Harry) wherein it quoted that portion of the Madras High Court judgment and the Court held as follows : "Impotency has been understood by Judges in England in matrimonial cases as meaning incapacity to consumate the marriage, that is to say, incapacity to have sexual intercourse, which undeniable is one of the objects of marriage. The question is, what does 'sexual intercourse' mean ? We can not do better than refer to what has been stated in AIR 1973 Delhi 200 (Mrs Rita Nijhawan vs. Shri Balkishan Nojhavvan) in paragraph 15 it has been pointed out as follows : 15. Impotency is the lack of ability to perform full and complete sexual intercourse. It has been accepted that partial and imperfect intercourse is not consumation and if a party (husband) was incapable of performing the sexual intercourse fully he would be in law deemed to be impotent vide Snowman (otherwise Bensinger) vs. Snowman 1934 PD 186. Any penetration however, transient cannot amount consumation of marriage, vide W (otherwise K) vs. W." 1967 (3) All ER 178." The English case reported in Delhi High Court's judgment, is. 1967 (3) All England Reporter 178, wherein it was stated that in order to be consumation of marriage there must be ordinary and complete intercourse. 6. The next case is AIR 1977 Calcutta 213 (Samar Roy Choudhury vs. Snigdha Roy Choudhury wherein the reliance was placed in AIR 1970 SC 137 as quoted above and the Calcutta High Court came to a finding that the wife was impotent, as normal sex was not possible. 7. Impotency is ordinarily said to mean an incapacity physically and mentally to have normal sexual intercourse. 7. Impotency is ordinarily said to mean an incapacity physically and mentally to have normal sexual intercourse. The Courts are of view that partial intercourse would not amount to consumation of marriage and if the wife is not capable to participate in the performance of the sexual intercourse to the fullest extent, it will be established in law that she will be deemed to be impotent. It means inability to have normal sexual intercourse, it may be due to malformation of the genital organ. A defect in the female organ which makes normal sexual intercourse not possible shall come within the definition of impotency. To get a decree of nullity two conditions are to be satisfied (i) marriage has not been consumated. (ii) non-consumation is due to the impotence of the respondent. 8. This being the position in law, I agree with the findings of impotency of the wife as held by the trial Court. I do not find anything to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Shri N. Dutta, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the medical opinion is that with mutual adjustment intercourse is possible. But as I have already indicated above in the present state of thing normal and usual intercourse is not practicable and that is, what is the requirement of law. In this connection, Shri A. Roy, who has appeared as Amicus Curiae has placed before me three decisions of the Apex Court, that is, (1997) 4 SCC 226 (Ashok Hurra vs. Rupa Bipin Zaveri), wherein in paragraph 22 the Supreme Court has pointed out that if a marriage is dead both materially and practically and if there is no chance of reconciliation and continuance of such relationship is only for name-sake and that no love rests between the parties, the Supreme Court found that that was a fit case to exercise the power under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable break down of the marriage. ?. In AIR 1995 SC 851 (Ramesh Chander vs. Smti Savitri, wherein also the same view was held and relief was granted under Article 142 of the Constitution. ?. In AIR 1995 SC 851 (Ramesh Chander vs. Smti Savitri, wherein also the same view was held and relief was granted under Article 142 of the Constitution. The same is the view taken by the Court in 1997 (2) GLT 127 (1997 (1) GLJ 501 (Manoj Kumar Mitra vs. Smti Sushmita Mitra), wherein also this Court pointed out what is consumation of marriage and this Court stated that if there is no sexual intercourse between the husband and the wife in the natural course then there is no consumation of marriage between the parties. 10. This being the position, this appeal is dismissed. 11. Before I part with the record I make it clear that the wife shall be entitled to Rs.200/- per month as permanent alimony under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and she will be entitled to recover her arrear at the rate of Rs.200/ - per month with effect from 6.3.87 from the respondent (husband). From today the permanent alimony of the wife shall be Rs.250/- per month. 12.1 am grateful to Shri Amitabha Roy, learned Advocate for his assistance in this case as Amicus Curiae.