News4u – News Desk : (TOI) : AHMEDABAD: A man whose wife had divorced him over his alleged impotence, fought a long legal battle to prove in the Gujarat High Court that her claim was false.
Wife Ramila Patel got a divorce from the family court on the ground that her husband Rajendra could not consummate the marriage. She also claimed that she was tortured and became victim of his financial fraud.
Rajendra challenged the order in the high court, which observed after getting laboratory certificates that there was no conclusive evidence regarding his impotency or the assertion that the marriage was not consummated.
However, in its order passed last week, the high court concluded that it would not interfere with the family court’s decision of dissolving the marriage on grounds of cruelty.
Rajendra and Ramila Patel married in 2000. Rajendra worked in an Ahmedabad private firm, while Ramila was an accounts officer with the telephone department. Ramila, who initiated the divorce suit in the family court in 2003, claimed that the frustration of the marriage not being consummated had turned into mental torture for her.
She even complained that though she helped him after he was injured in the 2001 earthquake, he usurped her property and fraudulently availed compensation received after the 2001 earthquake.
In 2009, the family court passed the order in Ramila’s favour and held that she was entitled to a divorce on grounds of her husband’s impotency and cruelty.
The court concluded that laboratory reports suggested that the sperm motility was poor and the man was not able to consummate the marriage.
During arguments before the high court, the husband said he had produced another report from a different laboratory showing that his sperm count was ‘fair’, but the family court had not take this into consideration. His lawyer also contended that ‘poor motility’ as mentioned in the report referred to the sperm count and could not be presumed to mean that the man was impotent and incapable of consummating the marriage.
After hearing the arguments, a bench of Justice Jayant Patel and Justice Abhilasha Kumari observed that in the absence of conclusive evidence, it could not be said that the husband was impotent and it was not possible to believe the wife’s claims that the marriage was not consummated.
(Names of litigants have been changed to protect identity)
[email_lin]



























