"Complete Lack Of Sensitivity And Maturity By Presiding Judges": Delhi High Court Unhappy Over Family Court Orders

The Delhi High Court has expressed its unhappiness over the orders passed by the Family Courts by remarking that "complete lack of sensitivity and maturity" is shown by the presiding judges.

"We are repeatedly coming across orders passed by the Family Courts which exhibit complete lack of sensitivity and maturity by the Presiding Judges. We have been repeatedly saying that Courts are meant to aid and assist the litigants, and come to their rescue at every given opportunity. Courts are meant to impart justice and to alleviate discord, disputes, troubles of the general public," Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh said.

In this case, the wife had preferred a petition under sec. 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to seek annulment of the marriage on the ground of impotence of the husband. 

The husband had filed his written statement, admitting that the marriage had not been consummated. He also pleaded relative impotence qua the wife. When the wife moved the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, the Presiding Judge rejected the same despite the fact that the husband had agreed to not even file a reply and to the passing of a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

"Since it was the admitted position that the marriage was not consummated on account of the respondent not being in a position to consummate the same with the appellant – due to his relative impotence, and the respondent had also appeared and agreed to the passing of a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC – which consent was also recorded in para 6 of the impugned order, there was no impediment in passing of a decree on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. We are unable to understand the logic or the rationale of the Family Court," the Court said.

The Court was of the view that the question as to whether or not the husband was completely impotent was not relevant, especially when he had given his consent to the passing of a decree of nullity under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

The Court was also of the view that the Principal Judge should have appreciated the fact that for a man to admit that he is impotent, is not easy, since such an admission or establishment of the fact of impotency carries with it, shame, guilt and embarrassment.

"This is unfortunate though, because the man has no control over his medical condition, and he is blamed for his natural inability to have intercourse with a woman. In our view, there is no reason for such a man to carry any shame or guilt or feel embarrassed as he has no role to play in the way he finds himself. An admission with regard to impotency or the establishment of the said fact causes the man to lose face and his self- esteem, apart from lowering his image amongst his family, friends and acquaintances, as a section of the society looks down upon the man as a failure– even though he is not responsible for his medical condition. It takes courage for a man to admit that he is, indeed, impotent," the Court said.

The Court therefore commended the husband for showing the courage to accept his medical condition forthrightly and wished him best in all his endeavours.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and passed a decree of nullity in respect of the marriage between the parties.