LAWS(MAD)-1956-8-2

T RANGASWAMI Vs. T ARAVINDAMMAL

Decided On August 10, 1956
T.RANGASWAMI Appellant
V/S
T.ARAVINDAMMAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal directed against the order and decree of the learned subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli in O. P. No. 186 of 1952. (1a) This O. P. was filed under Section 5 of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act VI of 1949 Clause (h) which provides that either party to a marriage solemnised before or after the commencement of this Act. . . . . may pray that the marriage be dissolved on the ground that the other party was impotent at the time of marriage and continued to be so until the presentation of the petition. This Act has been repealed and replaced by the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Section 12 (a ). The Clause (h) of Section 5 of Act VI of 1949 is identical in language with clause (a) if Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Therefore no vested right has been taken away and no new right has accrued.

(2.) THE petitioner T. Rangaswami is seeking divorce' on the ground of alleged impotence and alleged desertion. He married the respondent Ara-vindammal, who is his own niece on 13-9-1945. After living for sometime together, the respondent has been living before the presentation of the petition with her parents for a considerable time. The case for the respondent is that she is not as alleged either on the date of the marriage or On the date of the petition and that she is not the deserting party and that on the other hand she has been driven out of the house and that her husband wants to get rid of her in order to re-marry. In the course of the enquiry this respondent produced a certificate issued by srimati G. Poriniah, Lady Doctor, regarding her potence and this Lady Doctor has been examined also as R. W. 3. The medical evidence puts it beyond doubt that this respondent is suffering neither from organic nor atonic impotence permanent or temporary. This evidence is corroborated by the respondent examined as R. W. 1 and her father examined as R. W. 2. This was not in any way displaced by the evidence of the petitioner examined as P. W. 1 and his mother as P. W. 3. Before the learned Subordinate Judge the issue of desertion was not pressed with any seriousness as noted by him in paragraph 6 of his order and in fact there were no materials to make out the ground of desertion put forward as a second string to the bow by the petitioner. This petition was therefore dismissed with costs. Hence this appeal,

(3.) IN appeal I am of the same opinion as the learned Subordirite Judge on both these issues and here are my reasons.