The inability of a wife to bear a child is neither a label of impotence nor a valid reason for divorce, the Patna High Court recently held.
A Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar and Justice PB Bajanthri underlined that the Hindu Marriage Act doesn’t allow for divorce on the grounds of infertility.
This bench also added that the inability to bear a child is a natural aspect of married life and there are other options available like adoption and other alternatives for enjoying parenthood.
The Court said, “Inability to bear a child is neither impotence nor any ground for dissolving the marriage. Such possibility of inability to bear a child may be part of the marital life of anybody and parties to a marriage may resort to other means for having a child, such as adoption. Divorce is not provided as per the Hindu Marriage Act in such circumstances.”
Therefore, the Court dismissed the revision plea of the man who challenged the family court’s decision in which his divorce petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was rejected.
There were several allegations made by the husband on wife like she had refused to cohabit and consummate, she used to meet undisclosed individuals of her known even after family’s objection, she had behavioural problems with his parents as well as other family members, etc. Above all these, the wife had a cyst in her uterus, and natural process of egg-forming in her body was also impaired. Due to this health state, she was less likely to become a mother in the future.
On the other hand, it was highlighted that the petitioner’s husband was a 24 years old healthy male who desires of enjoying a family along with fatherhood like a common married male. But the wife was not willing to live with him and can’t conceive a baby, contended in the Court.
Hearing the arguments and considering them, the Court noted that the divorce petition was filed within two years of marriage. Out of which, the couple had lived together only for a mere two months.
The Court stated that the ground of desertion was not established according to Section 13 (1) (b), which requires continuous desertion for at least two years.
It also noted that since the wife was having a cyst in her uterus and was unable to bear a child, the husband wanted to divorce her and remarry another woman so he could become a father.
However, the Court found no concrete evidence of behavioural misconduct constituting cruelty, except for the wife’s purported denial to live together with the husband.
Further, it was noted by the Court that the husband hadn’t gone for any legal action for the restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, suggesting that his claim of refusal to cohabit was unsubstantiated.
“We find that there is no merit in the present appeal warranting any interference in the impugned judgment. The Family Court has rightly dismissed the matrimonial case of the appellant seeking divorce.” the Court said.
Thus, the Court dismissed the revision appeal of the husband.
Advocate Shyam Sunder Pandey appeared for the petitioner.
Source: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/inability-wife-bear-child-not-impotence-ground-divorce-hindu-marriage-act-patna-high-court