{"id":355516,"date":"2025-08-04T11:00:15","date_gmt":"2025-08-04T05:30:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=355516"},"modified":"2025-08-06T11:06:05","modified_gmt":"2025-08-06T05:36:05","slug":"allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Allegation of impotency against husband in a matrimonial dispute not defamation: Bombay High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bombay High Court:<\/span> While hearing a case of defamation filed by the complainant-husband, as the petitioner-wife made allegations of impotency against him, a Single Judge Bench of S.M Modak<\/span>, J., opined that in divorce proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a> (\u2018HMA\u2019), when the wife made allegations regarding her husband\u2019s impotency, she was justified in making those allegations, as they were relevant to support her interest. Thus, such allegations fall within the exception Ninth to Section 499<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (\u2018IPC\u2019) and would not qualify as defamation.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The wife had made allegations of impotency against her husband in the divorce and maintenance proceedings, and the FIR filed by her. The husband, therefore, filed a complaint before the Magistrate under Sections 500<\/a> and 506<\/a> read with Section 34<\/a> of IPC<\/a>, against his wife alleging the offence of defamation due to the statements made by her in matrimonial proceedings.<\/p>\n

The Magistrate dismissed the complaint stating that impotency was a ground for divorce under HMA. Thus, the husband filed a Revision Application before the Sessions Court wherein the Additional Sessions Judge (\u2018ASJ\u2019) remanded the matter to the Trial Court for further inquiry under Section 202<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a>, and to decide afresh regarding the issuance of process in the said defamation case.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved by the order of the ASJ, the wife approached the Court.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court observed that firstly, the ASJ did not give any finding on the reasons given by the Trial Court for the dismissal of the case and secondly, ASJ remanded the matter on the ground which was not even mentioned in the Revision Application.<\/p>\n

It was pointed out that the matter was remanded on the ground that the husband did not get the opportunity to examine the witnesses mentioned in the witness list, which was not a grievance in the Revision Application. The Court opined that if the complainant wanted to examine the witness, the request should have been made by him before the Trial Court itself, and the Trial Court was not duty bound to ask whether the complainant wanted to examine the witness.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that when the complaint was dismissed stating that impotency was a ground of divorce, the Revisional Court while remanding the matter ought to have made some prima-facie<\/span> allegations about the said finding, because the revision application was not allowed. The Court stated that if the ASJ could have issued the process, then he was supposed to go in detail about the said observation, but some prima-facie<\/span> observations were required, or at least certain directions to the Magistrate to go into that reasoning were required, but the same were missing.<\/p>\n

The Court referred to Section 499<\/a> of IPC<\/a> and stated that if the harm was caused by making imputation to the reputation of such person, it amounted to defamation of that person and in the present case, imputation was by way of written words before the police and before the judicial authorities. Thus, such imputation would amount to defamation when the case did not fall within either of the ten exceptions to Section 499.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the wife\u2019s case was that her husband was not capable of intercourse, which, as per the husband, had damaged his reputation. The Court further noted that the parties had a son. Thus, the Court emphasised that it was not deciding whether the allegations made by wife were true or not, but it would only decide whether the said allegations were made without good faith and not for protecting the interest of the maker.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court set aside the order passed by the ASJ, dismissed the defamation complaint filed by the husband and held that when the litigation was between both the spouses arising out of a matrimonial relationship, the wife was justified in making those allegations to support her interest. The ground of impotency might not be primarily necessary; the allegations were based on incidents that took place between their matrimonial life. Thus, the allegations fall within the exception Ninth to Section 499<\/a> of IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2790<\/a>, decided on: 17-7-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

Advocate for the Petitioners-<\/span> Shyam Dewani, Sachet Makhija, Dashang Doshi i\/b Dewani Associates, Advocates<\/p>\n

Advocate for the Respondents-<\/span> H.J. Dedhia, APP; Ghanshyam Mishra, Ekta Bhalerao i\/b Ekta Mistry, Advocates<\/p>\n

Buy Penal Code, 1860 \u00a0 HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"penal<\/a><\/p>\n

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 \u00a0HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Code<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the present case, allegations are by way of written words before the police and before the judicial authorities, thus, such imputation will amount to defamation when the case does not fall within either of the ten exceptions to Section 499.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":355529,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[86566,2569,3622,86568,69521,30971,42790,44157,86567,86569,13961,78254,3151,36335],"class_list":["post-355516","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-allegation-of-impotency-not-defamation","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-defamation","tag-defamation-impotency-allegation","tag-grounds-of-divorce","tag-hindu-marriage-act-1955","tag-hma","tag-impotency","tag-impotency-allegation-matrimonial-dispute","tag-impotency-grounds-of-divorce","tag-ipc","tag-justice-s-m-modak","tag-matrimonial_dispute","tag-penal-code-1860"],"yoast_head":"\nAllegation of impotency in matrimonial dispute not defamation|SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay High Court held that allegations of impotency against husband in a matrimonial dispute was not defamation and falls with exception Ninth to Section 499 IPC.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Allegation of impotency against husband in a matrimonial dispute not defamation: Bombay High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court held that allegations of impotency against husband in a matrimonial dispute was not defamation and falls with exception Ninth to Section 499 IPC.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-08-04T05:30:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-08-06T05:36:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/allegation-of-impotency-not-defamation.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Allegation of impotency against husband in a matrimonial dispute not defamation: Bombay High Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/\",\"name\":\"Allegation of impotency in matrimonial dispute not defamation|SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/allegation-of-impotency-not-defamation.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-04T05:30:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-06T05:36:05+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Bombay High Court held that allegations of impotency against husband in a matrimonial dispute was not defamation and falls with exception Ninth to Section 499 IPC.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/allegation-of-impotency-not-defamation.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/allegation-of-impotency-not-defamation.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"allegation of impotency not defamation\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Allegation of impotency against husband in a matrimonial dispute not defamation: Bombay High Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Allegation of impotency in matrimonial dispute not defamation|SCC Times","description":"Bombay High Court held that allegations of impotency against husband in a matrimonial dispute was not defamation and falls with exception Ninth to Section 499 IPC.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Allegation of impotency against husband in a matrimonial dispute not defamation: Bombay High Court","og_description":"Bombay High Court held that allegations of impotency against husband in a matrimonial dispute was not defamation and falls with exception Ninth to Section 499 IPC.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-08-04T05:30:15+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-08-06T05:36:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/allegation-of-impotency-not-defamation.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Allegation of impotency against husband in a matrimonial dispute not defamation: Bombay High Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/","name":"Allegation of impotency in matrimonial dispute not defamation|SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/allegation-of-impotency-not-defamation.webp","datePublished":"2025-08-04T05:30:15+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-06T05:36:05+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Bombay High Court held that allegations of impotency against husband in a matrimonial dispute was not defamation and falls with exception Ninth to Section 499 IPC.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/allegation-of-impotency-not-defamation.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/allegation-of-impotency-not-defamation.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"allegation of impotency not defamation"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/04\/allegation-of-impotency-in-matrimonial-dispute-not-defamation-bom-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Allegation of impotency against husband in a matrimonial dispute not defamation: Bombay High Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/allegation-of-impotency-not-defamation.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":239485,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/21\/del-hc-is-making-false-allegation-of-impotency-by-wife-against-husband-a-ground-for-decree-of-divorce-court-determines\/","url_meta":{"origin":355516,"position":0},"title":"Del HC | Is making false allegation of impotency by wife against husband a ground for decree of divorce? Court determines","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 21, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0The Division Bench of Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula, JJ., refused to set aside the order of the trial court granting divorce to the respondent-husband. In the instant appeal, Appellant-wife impugned the Judgment passed by Principal Judge, Family Courts whereby the Court while rejecting the relief sought under Section\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":268687,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/20\/wife-pressing-uncorroborated-allegations-on-husband-being-impotent-amounts-to-cruelty-under-s-131-ia-of-the-hindu-marriage-act-1955-kar-hc-grants-divorce\/","url_meta":{"origin":355516,"position":1},"title":"Wife pressing uncorroborated allegations on husband being impotent amounts to cruelty under S. 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Kar HC grants divorce","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"June 20, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"There is no straight-jacket formula when considering the term \u201ccruelty\u201d and it depends upon the established pleadings and evidence on record and the inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Karnataka High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Karnataka.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Karnataka.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Karnataka.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Karnataka.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Karnataka.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":246495,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/05\/divorce-3\/","url_meta":{"origin":355516,"position":2},"title":"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","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 5, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court: V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, J., while addressing a very significant issue with respect to a divorce being sought, expressed that: \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 Wife filed the present\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":270808,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/29\/madras-high-court-directs-state-police-to-alter-fir-and-add-ss-417-and-420-ipc-on-alleged-concealment-of-impotency-by-husband-pre-marriage\/","url_meta":{"origin":355516,"position":3},"title":"Madras High Court directs State Police to alter FIR and add Ss. 417 and 420 IPC on alleged concealment of impotency by husband pre-marriage","author":"Editor","date":"July 29, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Madras High Court: V Sivagnanam J. directed the State police to add the offences under Sections 417 and 420 Penal Code, 1860 (\u2018IPC') on allegations that the accused husband has deceived the complainant- ex-wife and made her to marry him, wrongfully displaying that he is competent to consummate\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":249385,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/07\/cruelty-4\/","url_meta":{"origin":355516,"position":4},"title":"Ker HC | Malevolent intention is not essential to cruelty; HC grants divorce on the ground of cruelty for making false allegation of impotency","author":"Editor","date":"June 7, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque and Kauser Edappagath, JJ., held that false allegation of impotency amounts to mental cruelty, hence, is a valid ground for dissolution of marriage. The appellant and the respondent were husband and wife, both doctors by profession. Both of them had\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":258291,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/09\/wife-seeks-to-insert-averments-with-respect-to-impotency-of-husband\/","url_meta":{"origin":355516,"position":5},"title":"Wife seeks to insert averments with respect to impotency of husband, can amendment to petition for annulment of marriage be allowed? Bom HC explains","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 9, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: While addressing a matter, Mangesh S. Patil, J., laid down significant aspects with regard to when a petition can be amended. Petitioner had filed a proceeding for annulment of marriage styling it to be a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act and was aggrieved\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/355516","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=355516"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/355516\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/355529"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=355516"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=355516"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=355516"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}