Name of the case: Ameya Arun Kulkarni Vs Isha Ameya Kulkarni
[FCA No. 18 of 2024] 

Parties: Appellant (Org. Respondent): Amey Arun Kulkarni
Respondent (Org. Petitioner): Isha Ameya Kulkarni

Hon’ble Judges/Bench:  Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar

FACTS

The case of Ameya Arun Kulkarni v. Isha Ameya Kulkarni centers on a marital dispute between the parties. The couple tied the knot on March 13, 2023, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs in Aurangabad. The said marriage  was described to be an ‘arranged marriage’. However, the marriage lasted only 17 days, ending on March 30, 2023, without being consummated.

Isha, the wife, sought an annulment from the Family Court, citing the non-consummation of the marriage as her primary ground. She claimed that Ameya had repeatedly refused to engage in physical relations with her, leaving her feeling deceived and distressed. Her contention was that the marriage remained unconsummated due to a condition she described as “Relative Impotency” on Ameya’s part. She recounted instances where Ameya’s behavior raised concerns- such as when he removed the wedding night decorations and during their honeymoon trip to Bangalore, where no physical relations occurred or could be established. Despite the involvement of her in-laws in trying to address the issue, no resolution was achieved.

Given these circumstances, Isha approached the Family Court, seeking the annulment of the marriage and a decree of nullity under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which allows annulment on the grounds of non-consummation due to impotence.

In his written statement, Ameya admitted that the marriage had not been consummated, but he attributed this to Isha’s behavior rather than any incapacity on his part. He asserted his own normalcy and blamed their lack of mental, emotional and physical connection, on his wife’s conduct during the brief marriage.

Following this, Isha filed an application requesting that the Family Court decide the annulment plea at the admission stage, without a full trial, as per Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. Her argument was based on Ameya’s admission that the marriage had not been consummated and that they had failed to establish any connection during their 15-day marriage. In his reply to this application, Ameya acknowledged his “Relative Impotency” but clarified that it was specific to Isha and not indicative of a broader condition. He expressed that the marriage had been a traumatic experience for him, and he sought to avoid the stigma of being labeled impotent, insisting that his inability to engage in physical relations was solely due to Isha’s behavior, as detailed in his response.

On February 26, 2024, the Family Court refused to entertain Isha’s application. The Court provided two primary reasons for its decision:

1. Lack of Clear Admission: The Court noted that there was no unequivocal admission of impotency or relative impotency concerning Isha in Ameya’s written statement, which was crucial for deciding the case based on admissions alone.
2. Collusive Claims: The Family Court also observed that the claims made by both parties appeared to be collusive, which further complicated the matter and rendered it inappropriate for a judgment based solely on admissions.

Dissatisfied with the Family Court’s refusal to grant an annulment at the admission stage, Ameya Kulkarni appealed to the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court. His appeal followed the Family Court’s dismissal of the application filed by his wife, who had sought to have their marriage annulled without a full trial based on Ameya’s admissions.

ISSUES

The High Court was tasked with addressing the following key issues:

1. Interpretation of Admissions: Whether the statements made by Ameya in his written submission, coupled with his reply to Isha’s application, could be interpreted as an admission of “Relative Impotency” sufficient to justify annulling the marriage under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. This issue required the Court to carefully analyze whether Ameya’s admissions were clear and unequivocal enough to meet the legal standard for annulment.
2. Legality of the Family Court’s Order: Whether the impugned order dated February 26, 2024, issued by the Family Court in Aurangabad, was legally sustainable. The Court had to consider if the Family Court had erred in refusing to decide the case based on admissions, given the circumstances and evidence presented.
3. Discretion under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC: Whether, given the facts of the case, there was a sufficient basis for the Court to exercise its discretion under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code to pass judgment based on admissions. This required the Court to evaluate whether the admissions made by Ameya were sufficient to dispense with a full trial and to issue a judgment at the admission stage.

RULE

• Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

“Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely:

(a) that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotence of the respondent;”

This section allows for a marriage to be annulled if it has not been consummated due to the impotence of the respondent. It provides a legal remedy for parties who find themselves in a marriage that remains unconsummated due to a physical or psychological condition affecting the respondent.

• Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code

 Judgment on admission

“(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.

(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn upon in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.”

This rule enables a court to pass judgment based on admissions made by the parties in their pleadings or otherwise, without the need for a full trial. It allows for the swift resolution of cases where the facts are not in dispute, based on clear and unambiguous admissions by the parties.

JUDGEMENT

The Court overturned and quashed the Judgment and Order dated February 26, 2024 issued by the Family Court, Aurangabad. The marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent was subsequently annulled and declared void under section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

ANALYSIS

In the case of Ameya Arun Kulkarni v. Isha Ameya Kulkarni, the Court addressed the issue of whether Ameya’s statements in his written submission, along with his reply to Isha’s application, could be interpreted as an admission of “relative impotency” sufficient to justify annulling the marriage under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court noted that the appellant-husband had admitted in his written statement that the marriage had not been consummated, attributing this to some fault on the part of the respondent-wife.

However, in his reply to the application seeking judgment on admission, he has categorically admitted the relative impotency qua wife, after being satisfied of the fact that it would not put lifelong stigma on him. The husband may have initially blamed his wife for non-consummation as he was hesitant to admit that he had relative impotency towards her.

The court observed, “The expression ‘Relative Impotency’ is known phenomena which is different than the normal impotency in which consummation of marriage become practically impossible i.e. inability to copulate. The various causes are identified for such contentions which may be physical or mental.” It futher said. “ If the husband abstains or fails to have intercourse with his wife, the inference of the incapacity can be drawn. There are instances recognized under various judicial pronouncements where invincible and persistent repugnance in consummation of the marriage is held to be the impotency.”

Mr. Joshi, the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Case of Sanu Vs Sandeep. In the aforementioned case, the following was observed in paragraph nos.12 to 14:

“In the instant case, what is admitted by the respondent is “relative impotency”. What is meant by the expression “relative impotency”? Simply stated, relative impotency denotes a situation where a person is incapable of sexual intercourse with a particular person though he/she is capable of normal sexual intercourse with another person. A person may generally be capable of performing sexual act yet he may be incapable of it vis-a-vis a particular person. The incapability may be either physical or mental. It sometimes happens that a person is capable of having sexual intercourse, but incapable of performing it with the particular individual. In such a case the person must be regarded as impotent in relation to that particular individual regardless of his potency in general. It is possible that a man is impotent in respect of one woman though he can perform sexual act with other women. A man may be impotent vis-a-vis his wife, though he may not be impotent vis-a-vis to any other woman.”

Therefore, the Court held that the pleadings in the written statement coupled with reply submitted by the appellant-husband to the application is sufficient to justify the case of the respondent-wife regarding Relative Impotency of the appellant-husband.

Regarding the second issue, the High Court’s decision clearly indicates that the Family Court erred in rejecting the application for a judgment based on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. The concept of “relative impotency” differs from general impotency and does not stigmatize an individual as impotent in the conventional sense. Given this distinction, the Family Court should have taken into account the difficulties faced by the young couple and provided a solution by declaring the marriage void. Since impotency is a valid ground for annulment under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, relative impotency is equally significant when considering the grant of a decree of nullity. Numerous judicial precedents, such as the one referenced, further support this perspective. Further the Family Court’s perspective that the parties are in collusion for claiming reliefs appears to be surmise.

On the final issue, while the Court rightly observed that the discretion granted under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code must be exercised with utmost caution, the case of Ameya Arun Kulkarni v. Isha Ameya Kulkarni was indeed one where such discretion could have been judiciously applied. The Family Court’s observations, however, were at odds with the legal principles established by precedent in similar cases.

Mr. Deshpande, the learned Senior Advocate representing the respondent-wife, argued that the Court possesses the authority to exercise its powers under Order 12 Rule 6 even when there is no explicit admission in the written statement. He contended that a judgment on admission could still be passed if such an admission can be reasonably inferred from any other material present on record. To substantiate his argument, he relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Mahendra Manilal Nanavati v. Sushila Mahendra Nanavati.

Mr. Deshpande strongly criticized the Family Court’s judgment, asserting that, given the contents of the written statement and the appellant’s reply to the application, the Court should have exercised its discretionary power to pass a judgment on admission. He emphasized that the appellant-husband had clearly admitted to relative impotency in his written statement, making it a compelling case for the High Court to grant the decree of nullity. Consequently, the High Court found that the Family Court had erred in its decision and overturned the previous order, declaring the marriage null and void.

CONCLUSION

In the recent case of Ameya Arun Kulkarni v. Isha Ameya Kulkarni, the High Court delivered a significant verdict by annulling a brief 17-day marriage due to non-consummation and noting that their agony and frustration cannot be ignored. The case arose after the 26-year-old wife left the marriage, attributing her departure to her husband’s lack of interest and his relative impotency towards her. Although the husband had admitted to the non-consummation of the marriage in his written statement and later acknowledged his relative impotency in response to his wife’s application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Family Court initially denied their request for annulment by rejecting the application.

Upon the husband’s appeal, the High Court carefully re-examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The Court ultimately overturned the Family Court’s decision, granting the annulment. This judgment not only provided much-needed relief to the young couple but also set a precedent by clearly defining “relative impotency” and confirming its validity as a ground for annulment under the law. Moreover, the ruling shed light on the extent of judicial discretion that can be exercised under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, offering clarity on its application in similar cases.

REFERENCES

Ameya Kulkarni v. Isha Kulkarni, FCA No. 18 of 2024 (Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Ct. Feb. 26, 2024), https://verdictum.in/

Guided and supervised by Adv. Aameer Vishwas Kale