HC dismisses wife plea on husband seeking divorce over PCOS
Madras High Court held that it is a legitimate expectation of the husband to live with his wife, cohabitate and bear children and if the same is not achieved, it is quite logical that either of them will approach the court seeking divorce.
Dismissing a Civil Revision Petition moved by a wife seeking to set aside the ground taken by the husband in the family court seeking divorce as she was suffering from Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PSOS) and was not fit for cohabitation or childbirth, the Madras High Court held that it is a legitimate expectation of the husband to live with his wife, cohabitate and bear children and if the same is not achieved, it is quite logical that either of them will approach the court seeking divorce.
Setting aside the submission by the wife’s counsel that the husband’s use of the terminology of impotency against her cannot be sustained, Justice Bhavani Subbaroayan said, “The term ‘PCOS’ by itself cannot be termed as ‘impotency’. Impotency is different and unable to give birth to a child is different, owing to various physical and mental reasons.”
But clarifying that the husband, in his pleadings, has not spelt out any single word connoting the wife’s impotency, the court accounted for the husband’s categorical allegation that the wife is suffering from ‘PCOS’ due to which’ her menstrual cycle will extend for more than 25 days and she is under medication ever since the date of puberty.
“The marriage being a bondage between men and women as husband and wife, it not only limits to biological needs and desires, but also as a companion in life caring forward to the next generation through their children. This bondage is a factor, through which, we are living in this world for centuries. However, the concept of marriage in the present generation are taken very lightly and even for trivial issues, they file divorce and marriage is broken,’ Justice Bhavani remarked.
“That is why the family courts increase in numbers to cater to the demand of intolerant couples, who are unmindful of the institution of marriage, break the relationship for unimaginable trivial reasons,” the judge said.
She also held that where the couple understand each other and come forward with the life issue-less or even go for adoption, however, the same has to be proved by the person claiming that his or her partner is incapacitated to give or bear the child. “But in the case on hand, the wife is not in a position to challenge the husband’s averments,” the judge added while dismissing the wife’s plea.
