top of page
  • Aryan Agarwal

#CaseBrief: P. v. K., AIR 1982 Bom. 400


FACTS

The case involves the appellant (husband) filing a petition for nullity of marriage against the respondent (wife) on 30th Nov. 1976. The marriage took place on 20th June 1976, and the appellant claimed non-consummation due to the respondent's impotency and refusal to engage in sexual intercourse. Allegations included the suppression of material facts about the respondent's non-virginity and a second-degree prolapse of the uterus.

 

ISSUES

1. Whether the marriage was not consummated due to the respondent's impotency.

2. Whether the respondent suppressed material facts about her non-virginity and a prolapse of the uterus.

3. Whether the appellant's consent to the marriage was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation.

 

HOLDING

The court held that the evidence of the appellant was more reliable than that of the respondent. The marriage was annulled based on the concealment of material facts concerning the respondent's health and the non-consummation due to the respondent's impotency.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The appellant filed a petition for nullity on 30th Nov. 1976, claiming non-consummation due to the respondent's impotency and suppression of material facts. The respondent denied the allegations in her written statement.

 

RATIONALE

The court found the evidence of the appellant to be more reliable, accepting the claims of non-consummation, suppression of material facts, and impotency. The court deemed the respondent's evidence as unreliable.

 

DICTA

The court discussed the details of the notice and petition, emphasizing that notices are not pleadings and should be read as a whole. It clarified that minute details need not be included in notices, and omissions do not affect the veracity of the evidence.

 

ARGUMENTS

The appellant argued that the respondent refused sexual intercourse, had a prolapse of the uterus, and suppressed material facts about her non-virginity. The respondent denied the allegations, claiming she was not aware of any sexual defects before or after marriage.

 

JUDGMENT

The court annulled the marriage based on the appellant's claims of non-consummation, suppression of material facts, and impotency on the part of the respondent. The evidence provided by the appellant was deemed more reliable, leading to the annulment of the marriage.

Comments


bottom of page