Court Invalidates Marriage Citing Husband’s “Relative Impotence”

A division bench of justices Vibha Kankanwadi and S G Chapalgaonkar in the judgment on April 15 also noted that this was a fit case to help “young sufferers of marriage” who could not connect with each other mentally, emotionally or physically.

Court Invalidates Marriage Due to Husband’s ‘Relative Impotency’ The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled to nullify the marriage of a young couple unable to consummate it because of the husband’s ‘relative impotency’. Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and S G Chapalgaonkar emphasized in their April 15 judgment that the couple’s frustration and anguish could not be disregarded, deeming this a pertinent case to assist “young sufferers of marriage” who lack mental, emotional, or physical connection.

A 27-year-old man sought relief from the bench after a family court rejected his 26-year-old wife’s plea to dissolve the marriage at the outset in February 2024.

The court clarified that ‘relative impotency’ differs from conventional impotence, which denotes a general incapability to engage in intercourse. Relative impotency, on the other hand, suggests the ability to have intercourse but the inability to do so with the spouse.

Various physical and mental factors can contribute to relative impotency, as per the court’s explanation.

“In the present case, it can be easily gathered that the husband has relative impotency qua (towards) the wife. The reason for non-consummation of the marriage is this apparent relative impotency of the husband,” the HC said.

The high court emphasized the significance of addressing the plight of a young couple grappling with the distressing frustration within their marriage.

It noted that the man might have initially attributed the non-consummation to his wife, as he was reluctant to acknowledge his relative impotency towards her.

“However, subsequently, he candidly admitted the same, being satisfied with the fact that it would not put lifelong stigma on him. The relative impotency is somewhat different than the general notion of impotency and the acceptance of relative impotency would not brand him impotent in general parlance,” the HC said.

“Marriage Annulled After 17 Days: Husband’s ‘Relative Impotency’ Cited” In March 2023, the couple tied the knot only to separate merely 17 days later, citing unconsummated vows.

The woman asserted that her husband rebuffed physical intimacy, leading her to file for marriage annulment on grounds of his ‘relative impotency’. Alleging a lack of mental, emotional, and physical connection, she sought dissolution through the family court.

Initially, the man accused his wife of the non-consummation but later admitted to his ‘relative impotency’ in a written statement. He clarified that while unable to engage physically with his wife, he was otherwise capable, expressing reluctance to bear the stigma of general impotence.

Subsequently, the wife requested expedited proceedings under the Civil Procedure Code, which the family court denied, alleging collusion between the spouses.

The High Court overturned the family court’s decision, annulling the marriage on the basis of the husband’s acknowledged ‘relative impotency’, deeming it null and void.