D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) The present appeal has been preferred by Prabhakar Jha, husband of respondent Jayantl Devi @ Minu Devi against the judgment of District Judge, Deoghar by which his prayer for divorce has been refused by dismissing the matrimonial suit No. 5 of 1995 with costs.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant got married with respondent No. 1 in May 1990 according to Hindu rites and customs. As further stated both the parties resided in the same locality, and such they continued to live as husband and wife. According to the appellant, during this period before filing of the matrimonial suit he could not succeed in having satisfactory marital relation with the respondent. It has been stated specifically that due to undeveloped female organs, the appellant could not cohabit with the respondent and ultimately on 30.9.1994 the appellant realized that due to this infirmity the appellant would not be able to perform sexual intercourse with the respondent. This lead to filing of the matrimonial suit for divorce on the ground of suppression of this particular fact that the respondent was not able to perform her marital duties to her husband. The suit was contested by filing W.S. and denying the allegations. According to the respondent, the appellant used to have normal sexual intercourse with her since May 1990. However the present suit was filed on the ground that she could not be able to produce child for the last four years and other allegations regarding dowry etc. It is admitted fact on record that the respondent was subjected to medical examination in October 1994 and even during the pendency of the suit by the order of the District Judge, Deoghar. It is also admitted fact on record that since 1995 the parties are living separately and all efforts for reconciliation have been negated.
(3.) THE learned Court below has decided issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 against the appellant holding therein that the respondent was not suffering from genital defects not from incurable defects as well as no fraud and deception was practiced upon the appellant before solemnization of the marriage. It is also held that the appellant failed to prove that respondent was impotent and incapable of having sexual relationship.;