A panel consisting of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and S G Chapalgaonkar stated in their ruling on April 15 that this situation presented an opportunity to assist “young individuals in marital distress” who lacked mental, emotional, or physical compatibility.
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has decreed the annulment of a marriage between a young couple, citing the husband’s ‘relative impotency’ as the reason for their inability to consummate the union. Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and S G Chapalgaonkar, in their judgment on April 15, underscored the couple’s distress and frustration, deeming it a pertinent case to address the plight of “young sufferers of marriage” lacking mental, emotional, or physical connection.
A 27-year-old man approached the bench seeking relief after a family court dismissed his 26-year-old wife’s plea for dissolution of the marriage in February 2024.
The court elucidated that ‘relative impotency’ differs from typical impotence, which refers to a general inability to engage in intercourse. Relative impotency, however, indicates the capability to engage in intercourse but the inability to do so with the spouse. The court further explained that various physical and mental factors can contribute to relative impotency.
“In the present case, it can be easily gathered that the husband has relative impotency qua (towards) the wife. The reason for non-consummation of the marriage is this apparent relative impotency of the husband,” the HC said.
The high court underscored the importance of acknowledging and addressing the challenges faced by a young couple experiencing distress within their marriage.
It observed that the man may have initially placed blame on his wife for the lack of consummation, perhaps hesitant to confront his own relative impotency in relation to her.
“However, subsequently, he candidly admitted the same, being satisfied with the fact that it would not put lifelong stigma on him. The relative impotency is somewhat different than the general notion of impotency and the acceptance of relative impotency would not brand him impotent in general parlance,” the HC said.
“Marriage Nullified After 17 Days: Husband’s ‘Relative Impotency’ Cited” In March 2023, the couple exchanged vows only to part ways a mere 17 days later, citing unfulfilled marital expectations.
The wife asserted that her husband rejected physical intimacy, prompting her to seek annulment of the marriage due to his ‘relative impotency’. Claiming a lack of mental, emotional, and physical connection, she pursued dissolution through the family court.
Initially, the husband blamed his wife for the lack of consummation but later confessed to his ‘relative impotency’ in a written statement. He clarified that while unable to engage physically with his wife, he was otherwise capable, expressing reluctance to bear the stigma of general impotence.
Subsequently, the wife requested expedited proceedings under the Civil Procedure Code, which the family court dismissed, alleging collusion between the spouses.
The High Court overturned the family court’s decision, annulling the marriage based on the husband’s acknowledged ‘relative impotency’, deeming it null and void.
