The Patna High Court has recently observed that the inability to bear a child is neither impotence nor grounds for dissolving the marriage.
In an appeal against the family court’s decision to not allow divorce to a man, Justice Jitendra Kumar, on behalf of himself and Justice PB Bajanthri, wrote in the judgment: “Such possibility of inability to bear a child may be part of marital life of anybody and parties to a marriage may resort to other means for having a child, such as adoption (but) divorce is not provided as per the Hindu Marriage Act in such circumstances.”
The appeal was filed by a husband seeking dissolution of his marriage on grounds of cruelty by his wife.
The family court had dismissed the husband’s application for divorce finding that he had failed to prove the allegation of cruelty allegedly committed by his wife.
The case of the husband was that he got married in 2015. However, his wife went back to her parental house after one-two months. He claimed that even during her stay at the matrimonial house, her conduct was not proper towards his parents and other members of his family.
The husband further alleged that his wife did not have mental balance and she refused to cohabit and consummate the marriage, saying that she had not married for making a family but to break her virginity.
He stated that his wife used to meet people from the village inside a closed room despite family members’ objections.
Apart from this, the husband claimed that when the wife was at her parental home, she complained of some sickness, so he accompanied her to a doctor. After an ultrasonic test of his wife, it was found that she had cysts in her uterus due to which there was no egg formation, which posed the least possibility of her becoming a mother.
Stating that he is a young man of 24 years of age in good health, who desires cohabitation and fatherhood, the husband sought divorce.
The high court noted that no specific allegation of behavioral misconduct amounting to cruelty had been made in the husband’s petition.
The Court further pointed out that the allegation and deposition regarding the refusal of cohabitation by the wife was also not reliable as the husband was in touch with the wife when she was at her parental home and he had not filed any plea for restitution of conjugal rights.
The Court opined that it appeared that when the husband got to know that the wife might not bear a child in the future, he decided to divorce her. “Such motive of the appellant-husband is clearly apparent from the pleading and evidence,” stressed the court.
Further, the court observed that developing any disease during the continuation of marriage is not within the control of any spouse, and in such a situation, the other spouse has a marital duty to cooperate and bear with it and help the other spouse.
Finding no merit in the husband’s appeal, the court dismissed it.
Comments
0 comment