The Patna High Court recently made a significant ruling, stating that infertility is not considered impotence and cannot be used as a valid reason for dissolving a marriage. The Court emphasized that the Hindu Marriage Act does not allow divorce based on infertility.
The bench, comprising Justice Jitendra Kumar and Justice PB Bajanthri, highlighted that infertility is a natural aspect of married life, and couples facing this challenge can explore options such as adoption or other alternatives to have children.
“The Court ruled that infertility is not impotence, nor can it be a ground for dissolving the marriage. Infertility is a common aspect of marital life, and couples can consider other means, such as adoption, to have children. Consequently, divorce is not permitted under the Hindu Marriage Act,” stated the court.
In this particular case, the Court rejected a man’s plea for reconsideration, challenging the family court’s decision to deny his divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The family court had dismissed the man’s divorce petition because he failed to provide evidence of ill-treatment by his wife. He had accused her of immoral behavior towards his family during her brief stay at their marital home.
Moreover, he argued that his wife’s refusal to cohabit and consummate the marriage indicated her disinterest in starting a family and her intent to lose her virginity. He further alleged that she secretly met individuals from her village despite family objections.
The Court learned that when the wife informed her husband about her illness and requested financial assistance for treatment, he took her to the doctor. After an ultrasound examination, it was revealed that the wife had a cyst in her uterus and was unable to conceive, making motherhood improbable.
The petitioner-husband, who was 24 years old and in good health, was keen on starting a family and becoming a father. However, it was claimed that the respondent-wife was reluctant to cohabit and unable to bear children.
The Court noted that the divorce petition was filed within two years of the couple’s marriage, and the wife had only lived with the husband for two months. Since the basis of desertion under Section 13(1)(b) requires continuous desertion for at least two years preceding the petition, the Court concluded that this ground was not established.
Additionally, the Court observed that apart from the alleged refusal of the wife to live with the husband, there was no concrete evidence of cruelty in her behavior.
The Court pointed out that the wife had not initiated any legal action for the restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which suggested that the husband’s claim of refusal to cohabit lacked substance.
In conclusion, the Court found no valid grounds to interfere with the contested judgment and upheld the Family Court’s decision to dismiss the husband’s divorce petition. Therefore, the husband’s appeal was denied.
