Let me pichak her lobang one at a time:
View attachment 193005
(b) states "owing to the
wilful refusal of the defendant to consummate it"
BOTH were trying their very best to consummate the marriage according to
@empathizerofeatshitndie wiki records. There was never an issue of "WILFUL REFUSAL". So s.106(b) is OUT of the equation.
(a) states "owing to the
incapacity of either party to consummate it"
The husband could NOT find the hole. That is NOT incapacity of
either party unless the wife did NOT have a hole. BOTH parties were healthy and the reason that either party was suffering from some incapacity was NOT raised in Court. If anything, they should seek help from the doctor to learn how to have sex in the right way. The Court cannot teach you how to fuck.
That is to say, if the marriage was indeed annulled, it was NOT on the grounds of non-consummation of marriage.