R.N.Mittal. J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by Inderjit against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Amritsar, dated April 3, 1972, by Which a decree of nullity of marriage was passed against hire or the ground of impotency.
(2.) Briefly, the facts as stated by Smt. Ushman, aged 21 years, are that she was married to inderjit on Feb. 28, 1970 at Amritsar, she thereafter went to the house of the husband on March 1, 1970. She learnt there that her husband was important. This, information was conveyed by her to her parents. She as left by the husband at her parent's house on March 7, 1970, her parents put the husband under treatment of Dr. Kuldip Chand and thereafter under the treatment of Dr. Bodh Raj. He, however, could not be cured inspite of their treatment. The fact that he was impotent at the time of marriage was known to him and his parents before the marriage. Smt. Ushman therefore, field a petition under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 195 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for annulment of marriage be a decree of nullity. The petition was contested by the husband. He has inter alia, stated that they lived together till April 9, 1970, it did that the marriage was consummated. He further stated that The was taken to the house of her patents on the representation that she had to attend the betrothal ceremony of some of her relative. She went to the house of her parents along with all the jewellery and she also took away wish her the jewellery of his mother and sister. He was administered Poison in the milk by the parents of his wife, whereby he developed internal trouble and severe stomach- ache. The wife and her father wanted- to grab the jewellery worth र 20,000.00. He was never treated by Dr. Kuldip Chand or Dr. Bodh Raj who were connected with his father-in-law. In fact he had been potent at the time of marriage and remained potent even subsequently. The trial Court framed the following issues : (1) Whether the respondent Inderjit was impotent at the time of the marriage and continued to be so till the institution of this petition ? (2) Relief. The trial Court decided issue No. 1 in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, it accepted the petition of the wife and granted a decree of nullity of marriage in her favour. The husband having felt aggrieved him the judgment and decree of the trial Court has come up in appeal to this Court.
(3.) The only question that arises for decision in this case is as to whether Inderjit was impotent at the time of marriage and continued to be to till the institution of the petition under section 12 of the Act. In order to substantiate the allegation of importency, the wife Inter-alia produced P.W. 1 Madan Lal. He has stated that 8/9 day after the marriage, the Petitioner (wife) met him in her father's house and complained to him that the respondent (husband) was impotent. 10/12 days thereafter he accompanied father of the respondent (husband) along with the respondent to Dr. Kuldip Chand. Dr. Kuldip Chand informed him that be was treating him. The doctor farther informed ham that the case was quite hopeless and there was to guarantee that be would be cured. After 11/2 months of the marriage, brotherhood of Khatris was assembled in Bazar Tokrian and he was also present there. The assemblage took place at the shop of L. Radha Kishan of Messrs Shahzada Nand and Sons. The father of the respondent made a request at that time that opportunity be given to him to get the respondent (husband) cured. He told them that be would consult Vaid Harnam Dass of Haridwar. He requested for a period of one month for treatment of the husband. The criticism of the learned Counsel for the appellant against the witness is that he was inimical towards the appellant as security proceedings were started between the father of the appellant and the witness. The witness, however, clarified the position in the re-examination. He stated that alter the institution the petition and at the time when he had been cited as a witnesses this case, the respondent (husband) and his father came to his home an dissuaded him from appearing as a witness and he refused them. Then they gave threats to him that they would kill him if he appeared as the witness. He reported the matter to the police and the respondent and his father were arrested. The statement shows that the report was made It the police after he had been summoned as a witness. It has not beet brought to my notice that the aforesaid session of the witness is not correct. His statement cannot be discarded on this ground.;