Bombay High Court Dissolves Marriage Due to Relative Impotency, Citing Suffering of Young Couple

The Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench has dissolved the marriage of a young couple who were unable to complete their union because of the man's "relative impotency," stating that their pain and suffering could not be disregarded.

In their ruling on April 15, a division bench of justices Vibha Kankanwadi and S. G. Chapalgaonkar stated that this was a suitable case to assist "young sufferers of marriage" who were unable to connect on a mental, emotional, or physical level.

After a family court in February 2024 denied his 26-year-old wife's motion to dissolve the marriage at the admitting stage, the 27-year-old man approached the bench.

In its ruling, the high court stated that "relative impotency" is a recognized condition that differs from "normal impotency," which is the inability to conceive in general.

In general, relative impotency refers to a state in which an individual may be able to have sexual relations but not with their spouse.

The court stated that a variety of mental and physical factors might contribute to this relative impotence.

It is evident from the facts of this case that the husband is comparatively impotent with regard to the wife. The HC stated that the husband's seeming relative impotence is the reason the marriage hasn't ended.

The supreme court ruled that it was impossible to overlook the fact that this case involved a young couple who were suffering from marital dissatisfaction.

It was stated that the male was reluctant to acknowledge his relative impotence toward his wife, which may have led him to initially blame her for their non-consummation.

But later on, he came clean and acknowledged the same thing, content that it wouldn't leave him stigmatized for the rest of his life. According to the HC, "The acceptance of relative impotence would not brand him impotent in general parlance because the relative impotency is somewhat different from the notion of impotency."

After being hitched in March 2023, the pair split up after 17 days. According to the couple, their marriage was not fully realised.

The male allegedly refused to have a sexual relationship with the woman.

The lady claimed the male had "relative impotency" in her application for the annulment of the marriage that was submitted to the family court.

She said that they were unable to establish a mental, emotional, or physical connection.

In the beginning, the guy claimed in an affidavit submitted to the family court that the marriage was not consummated and he held the lady responsible for it.

Later, he acknowledged relative impotence in a written declaration that he filed.

The man stated that other from not being able to have sex with his wife, he was normal. He added in the statement that he didn't want to be associated with the stigma of being generally impotent.

After that, the wife filed an application asking the family court to use the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code to determine the divorce plea at the admitting stage itself, avoiding the need for a trial.

But the motion was denied by the family court on the grounds that the man and woman had made false accusations of collusion.

The family court ruling was overturned by the HC bench, which also declared the marriage to be invalid.