LexYUVRAJ DIGVDAY SINGH versus YUVRANI PRATAP KUMARI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H YUVRAJ DIGVDAY SINGH v. YUVRANI PRATAP KUMARI May 2, 1969 [J.C. SHAH AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (Act 25 of 1955), s. 12-Conditions for divorce on grounds of impt;tence·, invincible repugnance to sexual act. and inability to consum1nat~: marriage though, neither party proved in1po- tent. The appellant married ~he respondent according to Hindu rites on April 20, 1955. Thereafter the parties lived t<>gether for ·three years but the marriage was not con~ummated. The appellant filed an application before the District Judge at Delhi on March 15, 1960 under s. 12 oLtbe Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying that the marriage between himself and bi• wife, the respondent, being voidable may be annulled by a decree of nullity. .He averted that his wife had an invincible and persistent repugnance to the act of cOnsummation and that she was impotent. The Di•trict Judge and later the High Court concurrently found that ~either . impotence nor invinCible arid persistent repugnance to the sexual -act were proved against the respondent. In further appeal to this Court, HELD : (i) Though it is not usual for this Court to interfere on questions of fact, neverthel.ess, if the Courts below igndre or mis-construe impcrtant pieces of evidence in arriving at a finding, such finding is liiible to be interfered with by, this Court. [563 Bl Earnest John White v. Kathleen Olive White, [1958] S.C.R. 1410, referred to. However in the instant case the Courts below has neither ignored nor mi5-construed important pieces of evidence when they came to the con~ clusion that the appellant's case, regarding the impotency_ of the respon- dent, could not be believed. [563 C] (ii) The case of G.v.G. [L.R. (1924) A.C. 349] could not ·help the appellant in the face of the High Court's finding that 'invincible repug- nance to the sexual act' on the part of the respondent was not p·roved. (563 G-564 Al (iii) The case of G.v.G. [L.R. (1912) P.D. 173] also could not help the appellant. In that case the Court without going into the queotio• which party was impotent was satisfied that the couple could not consum- mate their marriage in the present or in the future and should not be tied up together for their lives in misery. The position in the present case was entirely different. Neither of the Courts below had found that the marriage could not be consummated in future and they had not also accepted the appellant's plea that the respondent had always resisted his attempts to consummate 'the marriage. [564 B-564 El --~ The appeal must accordingly be dish-ti~sCd. I CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : qvil Appeal No. 905 'of 1968. 560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970] 1 S,C.R. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated A August 25, 1966 of the. Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) Delhi in F.A.0. 132-D of 1961. I. N. Shroff ~d Anand Prakash, for the appellant. S. T. Desai, I. M. Lal, S. R. Agarwal, Champat Rai and E. C. Agarwal, for the respondent. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vauliatiugam, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment dated August 25, 1966 of the Circuit Bench ·of the High Court of Punjab at New Delhi, confirming the judg- ment of the District Judge, Delhi, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under s. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, l 955 (Act XXV of 1955) (hereinafter called the Act). At the conclusion of the hearing of this appeal on April 28, 1969 we had indicated our conclusion that no interference with the judgment of the High Court was called for and that the appeal is dismissni without any order as to costs. The detailed reasons for our decision were to be given later. Accordingly we hereby give our reasons for coming to the said conclusion. The appellant had married the respondent according to Hindu rites on April 20, 1955. After the marnage the parties lived together for about three years at various places such as Delhi, Alwar, Bombay and Europe and, according to the appellant, dur- ing this period the marriage was not consummated. The appellant filed an application before the District Judge at DeU1i, on March 15, 1960 under s. 12 of the Act praying that the marriage between himself and his wife, the respondent, being voidable, may be annulled by a decree of nullity. In brief, the case of the appellant was that since his marriage he had made frequent attempts to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.