The Madras High Court Justice V.Bhavani Subbaroyan in the case titled Annapoorani v. S.Ritesh express her views that can wife's failure to cohabit and bear child breaches legitimate expectation on husband which entitled him to seeks divorce.

Facts of the Case:

The respondent (Husband) has filed the Original Petition before the Family Court against the petitioner (Wife) on the ground that the respondent is suffering from Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome ('PSOS') and the respondent was not fit for cohabitation or give birth to a child. The petitioner has filed a Civil Revision Petition praying for striking off the petition filed by the respondent.

Submission of the Respondent:

The Respondent has chosen to invoke a petition under section 12(1)(a) on the ground that the petitioner is incapacitated for giving birth to a child, the respondent also claims that the 'PSOS' is to be impotency and sought the declaration of the marriage that took place between the petitioner and the respondent on 01.07.2018 as null and void.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

The Petitioner has contended that 'PSOS' disorder is endocrine system disorder that affects the capacity of reproduction in women and which is totally distinct and different from claiming to be impotence.

Court’s Observation & Judgement:

The High Court has held:

“it is a legimate expectation of the husband to live with his wife and have cohabitation and bear children and if the same is not achieved owing to any physical and mental problem among the partners, it is quite logical that either of the parties will approach the court for seeking divorce on such allegations. Except in few cases, where the couple understands each other and come forward with the life issue-less or even go for adoption, however, the same has to be proved by the person claiming that his or her partner is incapacitated to give or bear the child. But in the case on hand, the petitioner is not in a position to show that there is no cause of action disclosed by the averments made in the petition filed by the respondent or that the cause of action disclosed by the averments made in the petition is not natural, but illusive.”

 In the instant case, the petitioner has not made out any grounds seeking for the intervention of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the petition filed by the respondent. In a result, the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

Read Judgement Here:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :