Bombay High Court Invalidates Marriage Due to Husband’s “Relative Impotency

The court’s decision was based on the case of a 27-year-old man who sought to annul his marriage with a 26-year-old woman. The high court described the case as a situation where the husband was unable to consummate the marriage due to “relative impotency” towards his wife.

The term ‘relative impotency’ refers to the inability to perform with a specific spouse, despite being capable of intercourse in general. The court observed that the man initially blamed his wife for the non-consummation, but later admitted to his relative impotency.

The couple got married in March 2023 but separated after 17 days, and the woman claimed that they could not connect mentally, emotionally, or physically. The man initially indicated non-consummation without admitting to relative impotency but later admitted to it in a written statement, expressing his reluctance to be labeled as impotent in general.

Following this, the wife filed an application to annul the marriage, which was rejected by the family court, claiming collusive claims by the couple. However, the HC bench quashed the family court order and annulled the marriage, declaring it null and void.

The division bench of justices Vibha Kankanwadi and S G Chapalgaonkar noted that the case was fit to help “young sufferers of marriage” who cannot connect with each other mentally, emotionally, or physically due to relative impotency. The court emphasized the various physical and mental causes that could lead to relative impotency and stated that the husband in this case had relative impotency towards his wife.

This ruling highlights the distinction between relative impotency and general impotency, and its impact on the annulment of the marriage.