The Madras High Court recently held that Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS ) cannot be termed as impotency. The marriage dispute that the Court was recently dealing with made Justice V Bhavani Subbaroyan state that the present generation does not certainly take marriage seriously.
Background of the Case
The case before the Court was in relation to a matrimonial dispute, wherein the wife was suffering from a PCOS condition and the same was seen as a factor for strained relations.
Case of the Petitioner
The woman-petitioner submitted before the High Court that her husband was seeking to end the marital ties on the mere ground that she was suffering from PCOS condition, and as such not fit for cohabitation and for conceiving a child.
Case of the Respondent
After filling the OP, the husband filed an interim application seeking to additionally invoke Section 12(1) in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in his petition on the ground that the wife is not capable to give birth to a child.
The husband alleged that because of the same her menstrual cycle stretches for more than 25 days and she has been on medication since her puberty condition. Consequently, the wife approached the High Court praying to strike off the OP moved by her husband before the family court on the ground that the invocation of Section 12 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act was not sustainable. Her counsel contended to the stand of the husband stating that the condition of PCOS makes his wife impotent.
Observation of the Court
The Court, however, observed that the husband had not termed his wife’s inability to give birth to a child as “impotency.” Indeed, the Court observed, that the husband’s claim was that his wife could not conceive as her menstrual cycle stretched for 25 days and that there was no cooperation for sexual engagement seeing her medical condition, the Judge pursuant to the same observed,
“It is a legitimate 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.”
Thus it was observed that one cannot simply say that there is a cause of action in the present case to approach the family court. Therefore, Justice Subbarayon held that there are no grounds made for the intervention of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the wife’s civil revision petition.
It was further observed:
“The issue of PSOS; which is now commonly prevailing among the present generation of women due to various habits, such as mental stress and to a very great extent, the contaminated environment, in which we live, is also one of the causes for particular women, who develop this physical problem. The term PSOS by itself cannot be termed as “impotency”. Impotency is different and unable to give birth to a child is different, owing to various physical and mental reasons”.
However, the Court observed that the husband has nowhere mentioned the term “impotency” and have prayed for annulment of marriage on the ground that there is no cohabitation and the wife is not in the capacity to bear the child, having said that, there is no counter that is being presented by the petitioner and hence no ground is made to intervene via Article 227 with the Original Petition filed by the Respondent.
Case Details
Name of the Case: C.R.P.No.106 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.995 of 2021
Before: Madras High Court
Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice V Bhavani Subbaroyan
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
