Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 801 (KAR)

Molly v. Jacob Mannual

2000-12-04

A.V.SRINIVASA REDDY, ASHOK BHAN, T.N.VALLINAYAGAM

body2000
ORDER Ashok Bhan, J.—Petitioner-Wife hereinafter referred to as Petitioner and the Respondent-Husband hereinafter referred to as Respondent are Christians by faith. They were married according to the Christian customary rites at C.S.I. Sawday Memorial Church, Tilak Nagar, Mysore on 17th April, 1989. After marriage, both of them lived together for some time. 2. Petitioner filed the petition seeking dissolution of marriage in the year 1996 under Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act (for short the 'Act'). It was alleged that after staying with the Respondent for sometime, the Respondent confessed that he had no interest in the marriage with her and also that he had connection with a lady by name the Rathna of Surathkal, Madikeri District who was from another caste. On account of the pressure as putforth by the parents of the Respondent, he married the Petitioner. It was alleged that the Respondent was psychologically impotent towards the Petitioner at the time of marriage and remained to be so at the time of presentation of the petition. 3. Notice was issued to the Respondent. The Respondent had put in appearance before the Trial Court and disputed the allegations made by the Petitioner. Thereafter on 22nd November, 1997 a reconciliation sitting was held. An effort was made to effect reconciliation between the parties which failed. 4. Petitioner led her evidence. Inspite of an opportunity being given to the Respondent, he did not lead any evidence. 5. On appreciation of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led by the Petitioner, the Trial Court concluded that the Respondent was psychologically impotent towards the Petitioner. That there was sufficient material on record to show that the Respondent was impotent towards the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Trial Court dissolved the marriage between the parties and has sent the file to this Court for confirmation of the decree of divorce. Under Section 17 of the Act, a decree of dissolution of marriage under the Indian Divorce Act, is required to be confirmed by the High Court. 6. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 7. Counsel for the Respondent did not seriously contest the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Independent of that, We have examined the pleadings of the parties, the evidence led by them and the order of the Trial Court. 8. 6. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 7. Counsel for the Respondent did not seriously contest the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Independent of that, We have examined the pleadings of the parties, the evidence led by them and the order of the Trial Court. 8. We are satisfied that the Respondent was impotent towards the Petitioner at the time of marriage and continued to be so till the filing of the petition by the Petitioner. The Trial Court has rightly dissolved the marriage between the parties by granting a decree of divorce on that ground. 9. Decree granted by the Trial Court is confirmed. Rule Nisi made absolute.