- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mathuram Augustine v. Vijayarani
Summary of Legal Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This reference arises out of the judgment of the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli, who decreed a suit seeking a declaration that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void under Sec. 18 of the Indian Divorce Act. The spouses are Christians. The plaintiff married the defendant on 27th May 1976 at the C.M.S. Church at Nazarath, Tiruchendur taluk (evidenced by Ex. A1). The plaintiff alleged that the marriage was never consummated because the defendant consistently refused to have sexual intercourse with him. He stated that he attempted to change residence and took the defendant to places (Tuticorin and Sholinghur) in the expectation her attitude would change, but the defendant allegedly continued to refuse intercourse and later went to live with her parents at Nazarath. The defendant filed a written statement admitting the marriage and admitting she refused intercourse on the first night (explaining fatigue and alleging violent overtures) but denied physical impotency; she ultimately remained effectively ex parte in the trial and refused to submit to a medical examination ordered at the plaintiff's interlocutory application. A Commissioner (Dr. Maragathavalli, M.D., D.G.O.) reported that the defendant did not present herself for the medical examination. The District Judge found the marriage was not consummated and decreed it null and void, subject to confirmation by the High Court. This Court (bench delivering the present opinion) reviewed the record and confirmed the decree.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on the evidence before the court, the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void under Sec. 18 of the Indian Divorce Act on the ground of the defendant's alleged physical impotency.
- Whether the defendant's consistent refusal to have sexual intercourse and her refusal to submit to medical examination permit the court to draw a reasonable inference of physical impotency (including within the meaning of S. 19(1) of the Divorce Act) sufficient to grant a decree of nullity.
- Whether the decree of the learned District Judge declaring the marriage null and void should be confirmed by this Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The marriage was never consummated because the defendant refused to have sexual intercourse from the first night onward.
- He made efforts (change of residence; visits to Tuticorin and Sholinghur) to secure consummation, but the defendant continued to refuse intercourse.
- The defendant refused to reply to the notice prior to the action and refused to submit to a court-appointed medical examination; these facts justify a declaration of nullity on grounds of physical impotency.
Defendant's Arguments
- In her written statement the defendant admitted refusing intercourse on the first night but contended this was due to the plaintiff's violent overtures and her being tired, not because of physical impotency.
- She denied being sexually impotent.
- In the proceedings she declined to present herself for evidence and refused to submit to medical examination before the Commissioner.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Jayaraj Anthony v. Mary Seeni Ammal . A.I.R 1970 Mad. 103 = 82 L.W 454. | The wife's consistent refusal to consummate the marriage and her refusal to submit to medical examination are strong circumstances from which a legitimate inference of impotency at the time of the marriage and at the time of proceedings (within the meaning of S. 19(1) of the Divorce Act) can be drawn. | The Court relied on this Full Bench decision to support its conclusion that the defendant's refusal to have intercourse and to undergo medical examination justified drawing a reasonable inference of physical impotency and thus confirming the decree of nullity. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded by addressing the legal significance of consummation in marriage and the evidentiary effect of the defendant's conduct:
- The court stated that consummation (demonstrated by sexual intercourse between spouses) is a necessary concomitant of matrimony; failure to consummate is legally significant.
- It examined the factual findings: the plaintiff's unchallenged testimony that intercourse never occurred; the defendant's written admission of refusal on the first night (but denial of impotency); and the defendant's practical absence from the witness box (she remained effectively ex parte).
- The plaintiff sought and the court appointed a medical Commissioner (Dr. Maragathavalli) to examine the defendant. The Commissioner reported that the defendant did not submit herself for examination and the defendant communicated her unwillingness to undergo medical examination.
- The court held that where a spouse is accused of physical impotency and is given an opportunity to be medically examined but refuses, a reasonable inference can be drawn from such obduracy that the spouse may be physically impotent. The court treated the defendant's refusal to submit to medical examination together with her refusal to consummate the marriage as strong circumstances pointing to incapacity.
- The court relied on the earlier Full Bench decision (Jayaraj Anthony v. Mary Seeni Ammal) and the discussion in Reydon on Divorce cited in that decision to justify drawing the inference that the defendant's conduct was consistent with incapacity rather than mere obstinacy or caprice.
- On the totality of the evidence and in light of the precedent, the court accepted the District Judge's finding that the marriage was not consummated and that the defendant was unwilling and, on the evidence, incapable of having sexual intercourse with the plaintiff.
Holding and Implications
The court confirmed the decree declaring the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant null and void.
Implications:
- The direct effect is that the District Judge's decree of nullity is sustained and the marriage is legally declared null and void as between the parties.
- The court's decision was founded on the specific facts of the case (plaintiff's unchallenged evidence, defendant's refusal to undergo medical examination, and precedent that permits an inference of impotency from such conduct). The opinion does not purport to establish a new legal rule beyond applying existing principles and precedent to these facts.
Note: All statements in this summary are taken directly from the provided opinion and no facts or inferences beyond that text have been introduced.
The Chief Justice:
1. This reference arises out of the judgment of the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli, who decreed the suit for declaring the marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant as null and void under Sec. 18 of the Indian Divorce Act. The short facts are as follows—The spouses are Christians. The plaintiff married the defendant on 27th May 1976 at the C.M.S Church at Nazarath, Tiruchendur taluk, and the marriage is evidenced by Ex, A1. The plaintiff appeared to have tried his best to have (sic) the marriage consummated and the burden (sic) of the song seems to be that in spite of persuasions, ever since the date of marriage, the marriage could not be consum” mated as the defendant never agreed to have sexual intercourse with him. The plaintiff effected a change of place of residence and took the defendant to Sholinghur and treated her in the expectation that there would be a change in the attitude of the defendant. Even such attempts were of no avail. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has left him to live with her parents at Nazarath. The defendant did not appear in the court below. The plaintiff therefore, alleges physical/impotency to the defendant and that she is incapable of having sexual intercourse with him both at the time of the suit and at the time of the marriage and prayed for a declaration that the marriage between him and the defendant is null and void.
2. The defendant, in the first instance, filed a written statement admitting the marriage. She admitted that she refused to have sexual intercourse with the plaintiff during the first night, but would say that it was not due to any impotency on her part, but because the overtures made by the plaintiff were violent and as she was tired she refused to have sexual intercourse with him. She denied that she was sexually impotent. She further stated that there were many letters which passed between her and the plaintiff and that she did not send a reply to the notice sent by the plaintiff before the action. In the end, however, she denied that she is physically impotent. In the actual proceedings, she remained ex parte.
3. During the course of the trial, an interlocutory application was filed by the plaintiff for a direction from the court to have the defendant examined medically about her physical condition and for a report whether she was capable of having sexual intercourse. The learned District Judge examined the spouses in court, the defendant, though expressed her willingness for a divorce she was not for an examination of her physical body by medical experts and stated that she was not willing to submit herself to such medical examination by a doctor. Thereafter she did not examine herself.
4. The plaintiff examined himself, and secured a letter from the Commissioner, Dr. Maragathavalli, M.D.D.G.O appointed by the court for examing the defendant. Dr. Maragathavalli's letter is addressed to the court. P.W 1 repeated what he stated in the petition and asserted in the box that the defendent did not have sexual intercourse with him on the nuptial bed and even at places like Tuticorin and Sholinghur to which places he took her for a change she did not have sexual intercourse with him and that for all the reasons, as stated by him and for the particular reason that she would not even reply to the notice prior to the action and for the greater reason that she refused to submit herself to medical examination even though an opportunity was given to her by the plaintiff, he asked for a decree as prayed for by him.
5. We may add for the purpose of completion that Dr. Maragathavalli M D., D.G.O who was appointed as Commissioner by the court wrote to the court that the defendant did not submit for medical examination on the date fixed for the purpose. It is in these circumstances that the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the defendant was not willing to submit herself for sexual intercourse with the defendant and a special feature in this case, namely, her refusal to submit to a medical examination was an instance to come to the reasonable conclusion that she was physically impotent. He accepted the case of P.W 1, that from the date of the marriage as between him and the defendant till the date of the action, the marriage was not consummated. In the result he found that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration that the marriage as between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void and decreed the suit as prayed for subject, however, to confirmation by the High Court as required under law.
6. Learned counsel for the plaint ff supports the judgment and after bringing to our notice the necessary papers in the record seeks for confirmation. The defendant is represented by Mr. S. Balakrishnan, amicus curiae, who did not appear yesterday and he is not present in Court today also. We have perused the records and after hearing the arguments of Mr. Raghupathi for the petitioner, we ate satisfied that the decree passed by the court below has to be sustained. Our reasons are as follow—
7. Matrimony, whether sacramental or Contractual projects certain reciprocal obligations as between the spouses, One of the main obligations of a matrimonial tie is consummation. Consummation of a marriage which is demonstrated by either parties having sexual intercourse with the other, is one of the necessary concomitants of matrimony or a matrimonial tie. If due to obduracy or obstinacy or otherwise on the part of either of the spouses the marriage is not consummated and one is not willing to have sexual inter course with the other, if an opportunity is given after being accused, by one of the spouses that the other spouse is physically impotent if the accused spouse refuses to submit himself or herself to medical examination so as to obtain an expert opinion about his or her pnysical condition and if the above facts are estblished in a given case, then, Courts are bound to draw a reasonable inference from such obduracy on the part of the accused-spouse not to submit to a medical examination and not to have sexual intercourse with the seeking spouse that the marriage is a nullity. P.W 1, the plaintiff, says that he did not have sexual intercourse with the defendant even on the first night and at any time thereafter. Though in the written statement the defendant denied the allegations made by the plaintiff she did not get into the box nor did she challenge the testimony of P. W. 1, in a manner known to law. There is yet another circumstance in this case which throws light upon the fact that physical impotency is apparent in the defendant. The plaintiff, even though the defendant was not physically present in the course of the proceedings filed an interlocutory application seeking for permission of the Court to have the defendant examined medically about her condition and her capability to have sexual intercourse with him. Dr. Maragathavalli, M. D. D. G. O. was appointed Comissioner. She fixed a date for examination the defendant. The defendant did not turn up before the Commissioner. She had to report to the court saying that on the date fixed, the defendant did not turn up for medical examination and the defendant also would say that she was not prepared to submit herself to medical examination and also wrote to the Commissioner to the same effect. These factors undoubtedly establish the contention of the plaintiff that the physical condition of the defendant was such that she was incapable of having sexual into Course with him and that she was unwilling to have carnal copulation with him.
8. In an earlier Full Bench decision of our Court in Jayaraj Anthony v. Mary Seeni Ammal . A.I.R 1970 Mad. 103=82 L.W 454. the learned Judges observed to the same effect at we said earlier and opined as follows—
“In a husband's petition for declaration of a nullity of marriage, on the ground of wife's impotency, the wife's’ consistent refusal to campmate the marriage and alto her refusal to submit herself to medical examination are strong circumstances from which a legitimate inference of her impotency at the time of the marriage and also at the time of the institution of the proceedings against her within the meaning of S. 19 (1) of the Divorce Act, can be down.”. (Head-note)
9. In that case, a reference was made to the passage in the well-known book ‘Reydon on Divorce’ who stated that where a woman is shown not to have had Intercourse with her husband after a reasonable time for consummation of the marriage and it appears that she has refused intercourse and resisted her husband's attempts, the Court, if satisfied that the refusal was not due to mere obstinacy or caprice, may draw the inference that it arose from some incapacity proceeding from nervousness or hysteria or from an invincible repugnance to the act of consummation resulting in a paralysis of the will which was consistent only with the incapacity, As we observed in the beginning, one of the necessary concomitants of a marriage is consummation. Obstinacy or obduracy on the part of one of the spouses not to consummate the marriage in the manner stated above, in our judgment leads to the reasonable inference that the defendant was physically impotent.
10. We accept the fading of the learned District Judge and the result is that we confirm the decree for declaration that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and said.
VCS
Alert