{"id":246495,"date":"2021-04-05T12:00:58","date_gmt":"2021-04-05T06:30:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=246495"},"modified":"2021-04-08T18:29:51","modified_gmt":"2021-04-08T12:59:51","slug":"divorce-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/05\/divorce-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Madras HC | PCOS v. Impotency? Divorce on ground of no cohabitation. Is it a legitimate expectation of husband? HC explains while discussing concept of marriage and S. 12(1)(a), HMA"},"content":{"rendered":"

Madras High Court: <\/strong>V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, J., while addressing a very significant issue with respect to a divorce being sought, expressed that:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201c\u2026concept of marriage in the present generation has been taken very lightly and even for trivial issues, divorce is filed, and marriage is broken.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Wife filed the present petition against the petition filed by the Husband before the Family Court. The husband\u2019s petition was filed on the ground that the wife was suffering from Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) and was not fit for cohabitation or to give birth to a child.<\/p>\n

Husband also filed an interlocutory application seeking for an amendment to include the provision of law from 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(a) and (c). The said petition seeking for amendment was pending before the Family Court for decision.<\/p>\n

Petitioners Counsel, S.P. Arthi submitted that PCOS disorder is an endocrine system disorder that affects the capacity of reproduction in women, and which is totally distinct and different from claiming to be impotence.<\/p>\n

As per the contention of counsel for the petitioner, the said claim made by the husband was absolutely incorrect and the said usage of terminology of impotency against the wife could not be sustained and on the said ground striking off the petition was sought.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Bench noted the categorical allegation placed by the husband with regard to the issue of PCOS in the wife due to which the husband sought a divorce.<\/p>\n

High Court expressed that:<\/p>\n

The term ‘PSOS’ by itself cannot be termed as ‘impotency’. Impotency is different and unable to give birth to a child is different, owing to various physical and mental reasons.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>On careful consideration of the contentions placed on record, it was clear that the husband did not plead the wife\u2019s inability to give birth to a child as \u2018Impotency\u2019, but he sought annulment of marriage on the reason that there was no cohabitation and wife could not bear a child. He also submitted that the wife did not cooperate for cohabitation owing to her medical condition, as she was almost 25 days on her menstrual cycle.<\/p>\n

\n

Marriage being a bondage between men and women as husband and wife, it not only limits to a biological needs and desires, but also as a companion in life caring forward to the next generation through their children.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Elaborating more in respect to the present set of facts and circumstances, Bench added that Family Courts have increased in numbers to cater to the demand of intolerant couple, who are unmindful of the institution of marriage, break the relationship on unimaginable trivial reasons.<\/p>\n

As per the pleadings placed, nowhere the husband used the word connoting impotency towards his wife. He mainly approached with the complaint that the wife could not bear a child for two reasons:<\/p>\n