<p>Making a false allegation of impotency or erectile dysfunction against a spouse as part of a counter statement in divorce cases amounts to mental cruelty, the Kerala High Court has observed while nullifying the marriage of two doctors.</p>.<p>A division bench of Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and Kauser Edappagath, while considering the matter of divorce between a doctor-couple, said making unnecessary accusations against one spouse amounts to "mental cruelty".</p>.<p>"Casting aspersions of impotency or erectile dysfunction by one spouse against the other in the counter statement in matrimonial proceedings will undoubtedly constitute cruelty. Hence, we hold that the above act of the respondent making unnecessary accusations against the appellant amounts to mental cruelty," the court said in its order.</p>.<p>The court, in its May 31 order, noted that the woman had alleged that her husband was impotent but "miserably failed to substantiate the imputation made by her."</p>.<p>"Apart from the bald allegations in the counter statement, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant was suffering from erectile dysfunction," the court said.</p>.<p>The court also pointed out that the husband was prepared to undergo a medical examination to disprove the contention but "no such steps had been taken by the respondent(wife)."</p>.<p>The court was pronouncing an order of divorce between the couple who got married in 2008.</p>
<p>Making a false allegation of impotency or erectile dysfunction against a spouse as part of a counter statement in divorce cases amounts to mental cruelty, the Kerala High Court has observed while nullifying the marriage of two doctors.</p>.<p>A division bench of Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and Kauser Edappagath, while considering the matter of divorce between a doctor-couple, said making unnecessary accusations against one spouse amounts to "mental cruelty".</p>.<p>"Casting aspersions of impotency or erectile dysfunction by one spouse against the other in the counter statement in matrimonial proceedings will undoubtedly constitute cruelty. Hence, we hold that the above act of the respondent making unnecessary accusations against the appellant amounts to mental cruelty," the court said in its order.</p>.<p>The court, in its May 31 order, noted that the woman had alleged that her husband was impotent but "miserably failed to substantiate the imputation made by her."</p>.<p>"Apart from the bald allegations in the counter statement, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant was suffering from erectile dysfunction," the court said.</p>.<p>The court also pointed out that the husband was prepared to undergo a medical examination to disprove the contention but "no such steps had been taken by the respondent(wife)."</p>.<p>The court was pronouncing an order of divorce between the couple who got married in 2008.</p>