HYDERABAD: Terming that there was insufficient evidence to prove the erectile dysfunction of a 33-year-old man, the Telangana High Court refused to grant a divorce to his 38-year-old wife. Alleging that the man, a govt employee, was sexually impotent and concealed his medical condition before marriage, his wife, a software professional, sought a divorce and a permanent alimony of Rs 90 lakh.She initially filed a divorce petition with the family court in Hyderabad, which dismissed her petition. Challenging the family court order, she moved the high court. The woman alleged that their marriage did not consummate both during their honeymoon trips and during their time together in the United States, where they stayed for a couple of years for work. She cited medical issues, including erectile dysfunction and failed surgeries, as grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, along with cruelty.In defense, the husband submitted medical reports and testimony asserting that he was capable of sexual activity. He claimed that the couple had a consensual sexual relationship both before and after marriage. He also submitted to the court a government hospital potency test conducted in 2021 stating that there was “nothing to suggest” he was incapable of intercourse.A division bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, while dismissing her case recently, upheld the lower court’s ruling which said that there was insufficient evidence to prove the husband’s alleged erectile dysfunction rendered the marriage unconsummated.The high court also questioned the woman’s silence since their marriage in 2013 until she moved a divorce petition before the family court in 2018. The court also pointed out the inconsistencies in the woman’s claims, including her continued cohabitation with her husband from 2015 to 2018 and the lack of corroborative testimony or any expert evidence.The court also emphasized that mere allegations without medical or factual backing were insufficient to declare the marriage null and void.The court further denied her request to introduce into the case additional documents concerning pending cases in the US involving financial disputes against her husband, as not relevant to this case.
