PCOS cannot be termed as impotency: Madras high court
An original petition was filed by the respondent against his wife on the ground that she is suffering from PCOS(polycystic ovarian syndrome) and not fit to cohabit a child.
PCOS is a hormonal disorder of an enlarged ovary with multiple small cysts on the outer edges.
The problem of PCOS is commonly prevailing among the young generation of women due to mental stress, to a very large extent, their contaminated environment, in which they live is one of the particular reasons. The PCOS cannot be termed as impotency. Impotency is different and unable to give birth to a child is different, owning to various mental problems, said justice V Bhavani Subbaroyan with regard to the misconception of Pcos.
In the perusal of filed petition, Justice Subbaroyan also remarked that today's generation takes the concept of marriage very lightly and files divorce before family courts. It is the main reason for the increasing number of divorce cases before the family court.
On the other side, Ms. A.R. Arthi ( women- petitioner) contended before the hon'ble judge that husband was only seeking annual of marriages on the allegation that wife is suffering from PCOS and not fit to cohabit.
After filling the original petition respondent also filed an interim application seeking amendment in the provision of law from 12(1)(a) and (c) of the Hindu marriage act. husband further alleged that wife is under medication since her puberty phase.
At this stage, the wife filed a Civil Revision Petition, with regard to the invocation of Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to bash off the OP filed by the husband before the family court under article 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
However, Court observed that the respondent has not spelled out any words regarding impotency but only seeking annulment of marriages on the basis of two reasons i.e. firest, there is no cohabitation and secondly, the wife is suffering from PCOS because of which wife is having an improper menstrual cycle extends up to 25 days.
Therefore, Court ruled that no has been made for intervention under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to strike off the Original Petition of the respondent.
in the backdrop of this petition, the court commented that:
It is a legitimate expectation of the husband to live with wife and have cohabitation and bear child and if the same is not achieved owning any physical and mental problem among the partners, it is quite logical that either of parties will approach the court for seeking divorce on such allegations.