Telangana High Court Rejects Woman's ₹90 Lakh Alimony Claim, Disbelieves Allegations Of Husband's Impotency After 5 Yrs Of Marriage
The Telangana High Court dismissed a woman's appeal seeking divorce claiming 'marriage fraud', after noting that she was unable to prove the allegation that her husband was impotent at the time of marriage and had concealed his medical condition before marriage.The court observed that if the wife never informed her parents, in-laws about her husband's alleged impotency and inability to...
The Telangana High Court dismissed a woman's appeal seeking divorce claiming 'marriage fraud', after noting that she was unable to prove the allegation that her husband was impotent at the time of marriage and had concealed his medical condition before marriage.
The court observed that if the wife never informed her parents, in-laws about her husband's alleged impotency and inability to perform marital obligations, instead she joined him in USA where they were living after marriage.
The court dismissed the woman's (appellant) appeal against a trial court order dismissing her plea seeking divorce on ground that her husband (respondent) cannot perform sexual intercourse due to erectile dysfunction, nullity of marriage, cruelty, and further seeking permanent alimony of ₹90 Lakh.
A division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao in its order said:
"Appellant failed to prove the inability of the respondent to engage in sexual intercourse which existed at the time of marriage and continued as such till filing the O.P...The Trial Court has meticulously dealt with the contentions raised by the appellant in point Nos.1 to 3 from paragraph Nos.12 to 22. We are of the view that the appellant has not made out any case to annul her marriage on the ground that the respondent is impotent and not capable of performing sex, underwent harassment in the hands of respondent and also failed to prove that she is entitled for permanent alimony of Rs.90,00,000/-. We are not inclined to interfere with the judgment passed by the Trial Court"
The appellant-wife contended that her marriage took place on 11.12.2013 but was never consummated. She alleged that her husband failed to perform sexual intercourse that night as well as during their first honeymoon to Kerala in 2013 and their second honeymoon to Kashmir in 2014.
It was alleged that the husband had played fraud on the wife by suppressing the material facts prior to the marriage, that he was suffering with Rheumatoid Arthritis, which attacked Erectile Dysfunction, which falls within the frame work of 12(1)(c) and amounts to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
She claimed in 2017, after medical diagnosis, it was confirmed that the husband is not fit for marital life and there is no possibility of having children. It was also alleged that that the husband abandoned her in the USA in 2018 where they were living after marriage.
The husband denied the allegations stating that the marriage was consummated. While he did acknowledge that during their marriage he did suffer temporarily from erectile dysfunction, he stated that after he underwent treatment was able to perform sex normally and the same was confirmed by the wife to the doctor during their next visit.
The claim was substantiated with medical reports confirming normospermia (normal sperm count). The husband contended that he and the wife had a sexual relationship on multiple occasions including on the two honeymoons.
The high court noted several inconsistencies in the claims of the wife. One of the points emphasized by the Bench, that raised eyebrows, was the absence of any complaint by the wife to her parents or in-laws.
“If really the marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotency of the respondent on the date of marriage, Honeymoon to Kerala and Kashmir, definitely the appellant would have informed her parents or to her in-laws" about the husband's "incapacity" in performing marital obligations, the court observed.
Instead, the court noted that the wife joined the husband in USA in 2015 on a dependent visa.
Furthermore, the bench noted that the wife herself admitted to knowing the husband since 2007, being in a relationship with him since 2008 till 2010, and rekindling their relationship once again in 2012, before their marriage in 2013. Given this background the court highlighted, the allegation of fraud cannot be corroborated.
Crucially, the Court pointed out, beyond her own testimony, the appellant failed to produce any independent witnesses to corroborate her claims. Medical evidence, including the potency test report, presented by the respondent, dated April 15, 2021, indicated that the he was competent to perform marital obligations, it noted.
The wife "cannot turn around after five years of marriage" and allege that the husband is impotent when medical records and her "own conduct suggest otherwise", the Court observed.
It thus dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court order.
Case title: X v/s Y
IA.No.1 of 2025 In FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.195 OF 2024