MATRF No. 1 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH MATRF No. 1 of 2002 Date of Decision: 5.09.2009 Barbara Lornie ...Petitioner Vs. Edward Murry ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: None. Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This reference under section 20 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short the Act) has been made by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh for confirmation of ex parte decree of nullity of marriage granted under sections 18 and 19 of the Act. The petitioner sought a decree of nullity of the marriage on the ground of impotency. It was pleaded that the parties are Christian and were married on 23.10.1993 according to Christian rites at Chandigarh. It is the case of the petitioner that immediately after the marriage petitioner was sent for training programme from Bombay to USA. The marriage was not consummated at all because the respondent was not mentally well. After return from training respondent MATRF No. 1 of 2002 2 shifted to the flat in occupation of the petitioner. The working hours of petitioner in a month were stated to be approximately 20 hours and she had to remain out of India on flight and for rest of the period she used to stay with the respondent. Respondent in spite of request refused to go to doctor for treatment of impotency as he never acknowledged that he has any such problem with him. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that doctor advised that in case counseling was done he might regain strength but the respondent did not cooperate. It was also pleaded that her mother fell sick and she had to come to Chandigarh to look after her and because of this respondent used to remain quite upset. It was the case of the petitioner that she purchased a flat at Bombay after taking loan from HDFC and thereafter she shifted to new residence at Bombay in June, 1996. Because of the attitude of the respondent towards her, relations between them became strained and respondent started assaulting her physically with an intention to get the flat transferred in his name. It was also pleaded case that she cooperated with the respondent to consummate the marriage but he could not do so due to weakness and mental stress. She even took three months medical leave from her employer and during this period she tried her best to give full love to the respondent but he was quite hostile. It was pleaded that the respondent used to illtreat her and she was thrown out of her own flat by the respondent on 29.4.1997 and since then she is residing separately from him. It was further pleaded case that on 29.4.1997 respondent told the petitioner that he was taking medicines and the doctor assured him that by MATRF No. 1 of 2002 3 Christmas of 1997 he will regain vigour and that he will come only after that but he had not turned up till date. It was pleaded that the marriage was not consummated because of his impotency. On notice respondent appeared though his counsel and filed written statement. But thereafter the case was adjourned for hearing. On the adjourned date learned counsel for the respondent pleaded no instruction and the respondent was proceeded ex parte. The petitioner led evidence in support of the allegations which went unrebutted. Learned Additional District Judge on the basis of ex pate evidence held that the marriage between the parties was not consummated because of impotency of the respondent. The evidence led proved that there is no collusion between the parties. No body has put in appearance on behalf of the parties. Special Bench of Lahore High Court in the case of Inayat Masih Vs. Mt.Dhani w/o Inayat Masih and another AIR (31) 1944 Lahore 162, has been pleased to lay down that High Court has power to act on a reference under section 17 of the Divorce Act without any further application by the parties. The High Court under section 17 of the Act can proceed with reference for the confirmation of decree of dissolution of marriage passed by the learned District Judge even when the parties are absent, and have not obtained a motion for confirmation of the decree. The reading of the judgment and evidence on record proves that MATRF No. 1 of 2002 4 there were sufficient grounds to justify the decree of nullity of marriage. Decision of the learned Additional District Judge is, therefore, correct on facts and deserves to be confirmed. Ordered accordingly. The decree of nullity of the marriage between the parties is confirmed. (Vinod K.Sharma) 5.09.2009 Judge rp