Showing posts with label impotent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label impotent. Show all posts

Monday, December 6, 2010

New-age couples take MoU path to break free

New-age couples take MoU path to break free

HYDERABAD: In a curious trend unfolding at the city family courts, new-age couples are citing seemingly contradictory clauses in their divorce petitions to break free from their unsuccessful marriages. This, say advocates, is increasingly being based on a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed between the estranged spouses a few days before they approach the family court seeking legal intervention to end their marriage. "The MoUs are entered into with the sole purpose to catalysing a fast divorce," said a lawyer.

Often times under the MoU, the spouse filing the divorce petition is given a free hand to take refuge under any clause which will help the court declare their marriage as null and void. At the same time, the other partner chooses to remain unavailable for court proceedings thereby ensuring that a legal end to their marriage is pronounced at the earliest.

"By failing to turn up at the court for hearings, the other party shows his or her unwillingness to mend their marriage following which the court usually grants a legal separation without much delay," says P Sundaraiah, senior advocate at Hyderabad family court. A recent petition filed at this court had cited non-consummation of marriage and impotency of the partner as the grounds to declare the marriage null and void under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

"For a person to know the potency status of his or her partner, the marriage needs to be consummated first. But this seldom happens and the petitioners level two blatantly contradictory charges on their estranged spouse," says advocate Anita Jain of Secunderabad family court. While those filing it in agreement with their partners seldom face a problem, in many contested divorce cases, such contradictory charges have earned the petitioner a defamation suit. In one recent case, the husband of a woman seeking divorce on the ground of his impotency, filed a defamation case based on the medical report (which he came armed with to the court). Needless to say, the medical report dismissed charges of impotency levelled against him by his wife.
Reacting to such petitions, the courts often call for an independent medical test to verify the authenticity of the partner's claim. But on grounds of it being a sensitive matter, people often refuse to undergo the test, say advocates.
A section of the lawyers, however, reason in favour of pressing such charges in one petition in genuine cases. "Clubbing these two clauses together goes on to make the case stronger. Behavioural patterns are often an indication of the impotency of spouses, and claiming a marriage dissolution on grounds of non-consummation stand perfectly justified in such cases," says Nischala Siddha Reddy, advocate at Secunderabad family court.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/New-age-couples-take-MoU-path-to-break-free/articleshow/7049696.cms#ixzz17KG0WX2Q

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Court relief for hubby charged with impotency

Court relief for hubby charged with impotency

Swati Deshpande, TNN, Sep 14, 2010, 06.36am IST


MUMBAI: A city businessman facing a police probe after his wife of 12 years accused him of being impotent and venting his "frustrations'' by beating her will not be compelled to undergo a potency test.


Offering the Peddar Road resident this respite, a public prosecutor when asked by the Bombay high court if such test was necessary n Monday said that the police would not insist on the test but would continue investigations in the wife's complaint under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC).

A bench headed by Justice Ajay Khanwilkar recorded the prosecutor's statement. The wife is seeking to annul the marriage before the family court in Bandra where she made a similar demand of having her husband tested for impotency. The HC said that since criminal and civil cases are separate proceedings the family court can deal with the civil plea independently.

The wife, a businessman's daughter, said her marriage was never consummated. Married in 1998, she only recently lodged an FIR against her husband.

Last month when the police wanted to test the husband at the civic-run Nair hospital for impotency, he rushed to the high court to challenge the powers of the police. His lawyer Edith Dey said the scope of police investigation could not include carrying out such medical tests.

Last week, the HC had suggested a mutual consent divorce. On Monday, with the mutual consent terms failing after the couple disagreed over the issue of stree-dhan, the high court asked the public prosecutor whether medical tests for impotency test must be carried out for the police investigation. The judges also asked the prosecutor to read out the wife's statement to the police to show whether wilful cruelty was linked to the alleged impotency of the husband. The prosecutor could not point to a link and said that the police had in the past not conducted such tests.

The wife's lawyer, advocate Flavia Agnes, in the family court was relying on supreme court rulings to say that the family court has the power to compel a husband to undergo an impotency test and in case of refusal, adverse inference can be drawn against him. She is also relying on a ruling which permitted annulment after several years marriage.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Court-relief-for-hubby-charged-with-impotency/articleshow/6549773.cms#ixzz0zSp2moYQ

-----

Associated news

We will not insist potency test in matrimonial dispute: Police


MUMBAI: In a matrimonial dispute, the police today told the Bombay High Court that they will not insist on potency test on the husband.


Accepting the statement on record, a bench of Justice Ajay Khanvilkar and Justice U D Salvi disposed of a petition seeking a direction to the state and police not to insist on potency test.

The couple, Ajay and Jamuna (names changed) married on March 24, 1988, and after 11 years Jamuna filed a police complaint alleging cruelty on the ground that her husband was impotent.


Ajay was arrested on January 5 this year and granted bail by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate a week thereafter subject to certain conditions.

However, in July, the state applied for modification of bail condition to change the day of attendance from Sunday to Tuesday for conducting potency test of the accused.

The Magistrate modified the order to the extent of changing the day of attendance from Sunday to Tuesday but did not change other conditions. In the earlier order, there was no mention of the court allowing potency test of the accused.

Despite this the police took Ajay to a hospital for conducting potency and psychiatry tests. Later, he moved the High Court saying the action of police violated human rights and his right to dignity. He said non-consummation of marriage does not amount to cruelty as per the scope and purview of section 498 A IPC under which his wife had filed a complaint.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/We-will-not-insist-potency-test-in-matrimonial-dispute-Police-/articleshow/6548769.cms#ixzz0zUqq79s2

 

 

 

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/We-will-not-insist-potency-test-in-matrimonial-dispute-Police-/articleshow/6548769.cms#ixzz0zUqTVctq

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Bombay HC saves man from impotency tag

Bombay HC saves man from impotency tag

MUMBAI: Marital discord continues to flounder in a sea of legalese as harried courts try to reconcile differences between partners who don't even share a bed. The newest issue before Bombay HC in this territory is: can the police force a man to undergo medical tests to prove his manhood?


The issue arose before the Bombay high court when a Peddar Road-based woman sought the annulment of her 12-year-old marriage, claiming that it was never consummated. In her plea, she also complained of marital cruelty stemming from "his frustration".

On Monday, playing arbiter, the court suggested the couple, Shyam Talreja and Sunidhi Patel (names changed), divorce through mutual consent. But the proposition created further disagreements between the two: Patel insisted the consent terms mention her husband's "impotency", a demand Talreja opposed.

The judges, in a bid to avoid tainting the man with the stigma "no prudent person might agree to", offered a more "amiable phrase". "You may say 'there was no physical relationship between the parties' rather than 'non-consummation'," they said. The court has now asked the couple to sleep over its suggestion and return next Monday to settle the matter, failing which it is prepared to hear the husband's plea on merit.

The couple -- both in their late 30s -- hail from business families.

According to his lawyer, Edith Dey, Talreja worked for his father-in-law's stockbroking company but was sacked last year when marital trouble began. Late last year, Patel filed a complaint of physical cruelty against her husband and in-laws under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). She alleged the physical violence was because of "his frustration arising out of impotency". The police arrested Talreja and his parents, but released them on bail.

Last month, Talreja said, when the police sought a change in his reporting schedule, he realised it was to have him tested for impotency at Nair Hospital. Aggrieved, he objected and got a medical report to show "all is well" from a private charitable hospital. But the police refused to accept Talreja's private report, forcing him to move the high court. A bench headed by Justice B H Marlapalle barred the medical tests.

Patel's lawyer Aabad Ponda on Monday said that a divorce which did not mention Talreja's "impotency" might mar her chances of remarriage and undermine the harassment she faced "for the last seven years". On her part, Dey questioned the "12-year delay in raising the impotency issue".

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/HC-saves-man-from-impotency-tag/articleshow/6516082.cms

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Can't say husband impotent without proof: Guj HC

Can't say husband impotent without proof: Guj HC

Ahmedabad, August 25:  Gujarat High court hearing a divorce case has rejected the family court ruling granting divorce to a couple on the ground of impotency.

However, the high court upheld the family court order of divorce between the same couple on grounds of desertion and cruelty.

One Rajendra Dalal had challenged a family court's order granting divorce to his wife Dharmishta on the ground of impotency and cruelty, in the Gujarat High Court.

A division bench of Justice Jayant Patel and Abhilasha Kumari, last week, rejected the man's appeal, saying that the petition was devoid of merits.

The court, however, observed that there was no conclusive evidence to prove that the man was impotent or the marriage was not consummated. "The finding of the Family Court on this point, therefore, cannot be endorsed," it observed.

It said that the decree of dissolution of marriage has been passed by the Family Court under the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the ground of cruelty and desertion and not under Section 12 (impotency).

Also, the Family Court, while granting divorce had recorded cogent findings on the ground of desertion and cruelty against the man, the court added.

(with PTI inputs)

http://www.zopag.com/news/cant-say-husband-impotent-without-proof-guj-hc/25786.html

…………….

HC: Can’t say husband impotent without proof

Ahmedabad, August 25, PTI:

The Gujarat High Court has observed that specific medical proof was required to determine whether a husband was impotent or his marriage cannot be consummated when a wife seeks divorce on this count.

A division bench of the HC comprising Justices Jayant Patel and Abhilasha Kumari has set aside the grounds for a verdict passed by a family court vis-à-vis a divorce petition. In the case involving an earthquake victim husband and his wife, the family court had granted divorce on the grounds of impotency and consequent ‘cruelty’.


Rejecting a family court ruling that granted divorce to a couple on the ground of impotency, the HC, however, upheld the family court order of divorce between the same couple on grounds of desertion and cruelty. Rajendra Dalal had challenged the family court’s order granting divorce to his wife Dharmishta on the ground of impotency and cruelty. It said the decree of dissolution of marriage has been passed by the family court under provisions of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on ground of cruelty and desertion and not under Section 12 (impotency).

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/91446/hc-cant-say-husband-impotent.html

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Woman asked to compensate ex-husband for alleging impotency

Woman asked to compensate ex-husband for alleging impotency

By: Agencies
Date:  2010-07-27
Place: Harda

A local court has ordered a woman to give Rs 2 lakh as compensation to her estranged husband for alleging that he was impotent.

District and Sessions Judge Jagdish Prasad Parashar asked Vandana Gurjar to compensate her ex-husband Hemant Chhalotre, while delivering his judgement in a defamation case filed by the latter yesterday.

Hemant had argued that Vandana's false allegation had rendered him "unmarriageable" and sullied his prestige.

The two had tied the nuptial knot nine years ago but separated three months later, after Vandana returned to her parents home following marital discord.

She also lodged a complaint against her husband and in-laws at a police station in Bhopal alleging that they harassed her for dowry and further claimed that she could not have conjugal bliss with Hemant "as he was impotent".

A police case was registered against Hemant and his parents, but a local court acquitted them of all charges in 2004. Following this, Vandana filed a petition in a higher court seeking divorce pleading that Hemant was impotent.

The court accepted her petition and ordered dissolution of the marriage. Enraged on the charge of impotence, Hemant filed a defamation case against Vandana on February 10, 2006 seeking compensation.

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2010/jul/270710-woman-to-pay-ex-husband-for-alleging-impotency.htm

पति को नपुंसक कहा, देगी 2 लाख का हर्जाना

पति को नपुंसक कहा, देगी 2 लाख का हर्जाना

भोपाल।। 28 july 2010

मध्य प्रदेश में हरदा की एक अदालत ने हज्बंड पर नपुंसकता(इम्पोटेंसी )का झूठा आरोप लगाने वाली महिला पर दो लाख का जुर्माना लगाया है।

उसे यह रकम अपने एक्स हज्बंड को देनी होगी।
एक्स हबी हेमंत छलोतरे ने एक्स वाइफ वंदना गुर्जर के खिलाफ मानहानि का मुकदमा दायर किया था। सुनवाई के बाद डिस्ट्रिक्ट एंड सेशन जज जगदीश प्रसाद पराशर ने यह फैसला सुनाया।
हेमंत और वंदना की शादी करीब नौ साल पहले हुई थी, लेकिन तीन महीने बाद ही दोनों अलग हो गए थे। वंदना ने इसके बाद भोपाल के एक थाने में हेमंत और उसके परिवार के खिलाफ दहेज के लिए सताए जाने की शिकायत भी दर्ज कराई थी। इसके आधार पर चले मुकदमे में हालांकि हेमंत और उसके परिवार को अदालत ने बरी कर दिया था।
इसके बाद वंदना ने पति के नपुंसक होने का दावा किया और तलाक की अर्जी दाखिल कर दी। अदालत ने उसकी अर्जी स्वीकार करते हुए तलाक का आदेश दे दिया। झूठे आरोप के आधार पर बेइज्जत किए जाने के बाद 2006 में हेमंत ने मानहानि का मुकदमा दायर किया था।

 

http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/delhiarticleshow/6227238.cms