HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3620 OF 2011 DATE:09-09-2011 BETWEEN Ponnaluri Sri Ram …Petitioner AND P.Vishnu Vardana …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3620 OF 2011 ORDER: Petitioner-husband filed this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the orders of Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada dated 16.8.2011 made in I.A.No.1322 of 2011 in O.P.No.384 of 2008. Respondent-wife instituted the above O.P. for annulment of the marriage under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the marriage could not be consummated owing to the impotency of the petitioner-husband and due to his unusual behaviour. Contesting the O.P., petitioner herein filed a counter opposing the plea of the respondent-wife stating that due to the allegations made by the respondent-wife he got examined at Andrology Centre, Hyderabad and that the doctor-M.Srinivasa Rao, who examined him was examined as R.W.2 and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked through him. He filed the impugned I.A. stating that his examination by a psychiatrist is just and necessary and therefore, prayed the Court to grant two weeks time to lead further evidence on his behalf. On dismissal of the same, the present revision is filed. It is not in dispute that earlier, after closure of the evidence of both the parties, petitioner herein filed I.A.No.590 of 2011 and I.A.No.566 of 2011. The former was filed for reopening of the O.P. for allowing collection of further evidence by way of examination of a doctor, who is said to have clinically examined the petitioner and the latter was filed for reopening of the evidence of R.W.1 (petitioner herein). On dismissal of the said I.As., petitioner herein carried the matter in revisions being C.R.P.Nos.1916 and 1917 of 2011 and this Court by common order allowed the said revisions by allowing I.A.Nos.590 and 566 of 2011. Thereafter, petitioner led the evidence and also examined R.W.2, through whom, he got marked Exs.B.1 and B.2. Later the petitioner filed the present impugned I.A. seeking two weeks time to lead further evidence stating that he wants to be examined by a psychiatrist, which appears to be filed only to drag on the proceedings. The burden lies on the respondent-wife to establish the grounds under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act i.e. the marriage could not be consummated owing to impotency of the petitioner-husband. Since the O.P. itself is filed under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, examination of the petitioner by a psychiatrist to prove that the petitioner does not suffer from any mental disability is not at all relevant. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the lower Court dismissing the I.A. in question does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 09, 2011 Tsr.