‘Marriage can't be dissolved over trivial allegations': Pune family court rejects woman's claim of husband's impotency

Indian Express

2 days ago

A family court in Pune recently rejected the claim of a woman that her husband was impotent, citing a lack of evidence, and directed her to go back to his house within two months.
The couple got married in 2020, and work as software engineers in Pune.
'Marriage is a sacrament and cannot be dissolved over trivial or unproven allegations. As the wife's accusations remain unsubstantiated, the husband's petition is granted,' Judge Ganesh Ghule said in his order, which was made available on the public domain on August 1.
The court said that while the wife's accusation could constitute a valid reason for refusal to cohabit, it must be proven. 'Mere unsubstantiated claims cannot be accepted. The wife failed to demonstrate that her husband's conduct endangered her life or made living with him intolerable,' the judge noted in his order in June.
According to the lawyers representing the husband, the woman, who is from Pune, had left her husband after accusing him of being incapable of physical relations. 'After the marriage, the couple went on a honeymoon. After returning, the woman opposed staying with in-laws. So the couple started living separately. After that, she got a job. After six months of living with her husband, she started living separately as a paying guest,' the advocate said.
The woman's husband then filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, arguing that his wife had abandoned him without any valid reason and should be ordered to return and resume marital cohabitation.
In her written response to her husband's petition, the woman claimed that her husband had a suspicious temperament and was incapable of physical relations, stating that they had never consummated the marriage and that he suffered premature ejaculation. She had alleged that when she had asked her husband to consult a doctor, he insulted her, and his family drove her out of the house. She also noted having filed a separate petition for annulment in another court.
However, the husband rejected all accusations in the court and asserted that he was fully capable and that they enjoyed a healthy sexual relationship during and after their honeymoon.
The court concluded that she had abandoned her husband without sufficient cause. It further observed that because she had filed an annulment petition elsewhere, it was inappropriate to delve deeper into the husband's capacity in this proceeding.
Advocate Ajinkya P Salunke, appearing for the husband, said that the family court's ruling has made it clear that the decision upholds respect for the institution of marriage.
'According to Hindu law, marriage is a sacred rite. It should not be broken over trivial reasons or unproven allegations. Both spouses are expected to make efforts to maintain their relationship. In short, this judgment transcends a private dispute and highlights the importance of trust, responsibility, and harmony in marriage,' the lawyer said.
Advocate Mayur P. Salunke, also representing the husband, stated that the court reiterated that its primary aim is to reunite spouses who have separated and to guide them through counselling. 'Judicial processes should not be invoked for every minor issue or unsubstantiated ones. When one party levels serious allegations—such as questioning the husband's physical capacity—the burden of proof lies entirely on the accuser. Unsubstantiated accusations cannot withstand legal scrutiny,' Mayur P. Salunke said.
Court finds inconsistencies in woman's statements
The family court examined both parties' arguments and evidence. Although the wife raised serious questions about her husband's physical capacity, she produced no medical proof or expert testimony. The court found inconsistencies in her statements, claiming that the marriage was never consummated and that he suffered premature ejaculation, Advocate Ajinkya Saluke said.
In family matters, decisions rest on the preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The wife's inability to substantiate her allegations meant she had no valid reason to refuse cohabitation, Advocate Ajinkya Salunke said.