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

A division bench of justices Vibha Kankanwadi and S G Chapalgaonkar delivered a judgment on April 15, addressing the case of a 27-year-old man who sought intervention after a family court rejected his 26-year-old wife’s application to annul their marriage on the admission stage. The high court ruled that the term ‘relative impotency’ refers to a situation where a person is capable of having intercourse, but unable to perform it with the spouse due to various physical and mental causes.

The court emphasized that this is distinct from the general notion of impotency, which involves the inability to copulate in general. In the specific case brought before the court, it was determined that the husband had relative impotency towards his wife, which was identified as the reason for the non-consummation of the marriage.

Initially, the man had attributed the lack of consummation to his wife, but later admitted to his relative impotency, clarifying that it would not brand him impotent in general parlance. The couple, married in March 2023, separated after 17 days, stating that their marriage was not consummated.

The woman sought an annulment, claiming that they could not connect with each other mentally, emotionally, or physically. Initially, the man blamed the woman for the lack of consummation but eventually admitted to his relative impotency.

The family court had rejected the wife’s application, alleging collusive claims by the man and woman. However, the high court overturned this decision, annulling the marriage and declaring it null and void.