1. Introduction

Biological Compatibility Divorce Claims refers to legal disputes in which a spouse argues that a biological, genetic, reproductive, or medically established incompatibility has substantially affected the marital relationship and provides grounds for divorce, annulment, or another matrimonial remedy.

The phrase is not a universally recognized, independent legal cause of action for divorce. Rather, it is a useful analytical category for examining how family law addresses medical conditions, infertility, genetic disorders, reproductive incompatibility, disputed biological parentage, and medically significant facts that were concealed before marriage.

For example, a dispute might arise when:

• One spouse discovers that the couple cannot conceive because of a medically established reproductive condition.
• A spouse alleges that the other concealed a serious condition affecting sexual relations or reproductive capacity.
• A genetic condition creates concerns about the health of prospective children.
• One spouse alleges fraud or misrepresentation concerning a material medical fact before marriage.
• A dispute about biological parentage is used to seek divorce or challenge the validity of a marriage.

The central legal question is not simply whether two spouses are biologically compatible. It is whether the established facts satisfy a recognized statutory ground for divorce or annulment, while respecting bodily autonomy, privacy, equality, reproductive freedom, and the dignity of both spouses.

This explanation focuses primarily on Indian law, with comparative reference to important decisions from other jurisdictions.

2. Meaning and Scope of Biological Compatibility

Biological compatibility can encompass several legally distinct issues. These must not be treated as interchangeable.

Important distinction: A medical inability to conceive is not the same as an inability to consummate a marriage. Likewise, genetic risk is not the same as a genetic disease, and neither automatically establishes that a marriage is legally invalid.

3. Statutory Framework Under Indian Law

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is particularly important when a biological compatibility dispute arises between Hindu spouses.

The relevant provisions are as follows.

Section 12: Voidable marriages

Section 12 provides grounds on which a marriage may be annulled by a decree of nullity.

Section 12(1)(a): Non-consummation due to impotence

A marriage may be annulled where it has not been consummated because of the respondent's impotence.

The distinction between impotence and infertility is crucial:

• Impotence, for this provision, concerns incapacity to consummate the marriage.
• Infertility concerns difficulty or inability to conceive a child.
• A person may be fertile but unable to consummate a marriage, or infertile while being fully capable of sexual intercourse.

Consequently, medical evidence showing infertility does not, by itself, establish impotence.

Section 12(1)(c): Consent obtained by fraud

A marriage may be annulled where the petitioner's consent was obtained by force or by fraud concerning the nature of the ceremony or a material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent.

A concealed medical condition could potentially be relevant, but not every nondisclosure constitutes statutory fraud.

The court would examine matters such as:

1. What information was concealed or misrepresented?
2. Was the information material to the circumstances of the marriage?
3. Did the misrepresentation satisfy the statutory test?
4. When was the fraud discovered?
5. Did the petitioner continue marital life with full consent after discovering it?

Section 12(2) also contains important restrictions, including a general one-year limitation tied to discovery of fraud and a restriction where the petitioner voluntarily continued living with the other spouse after discovery. The precise application depends on the ground pleaded. IndiaCode by eCourtsIndia

Section 13: Divorce

Section 13 identifies statutory grounds for divorce, including:

• Cruelty.
• Desertion for the prescribed period.
• Adultery.
• Certain other grounds specified by the Act.

Biological incompatibility is not independently listed as a general ground.

Nevertheless, conduct associated with a biological or medical dispute may become relevant to an established ground if its legal requirements are proved.

For example, sustained humiliation, deliberate harassment, or serious false accusations concerning fertility may be examined as possible cruelty. Whether cruelty is established depends on the evidence and the overall circumstances, not merely on the existence of a medical condition. IndiaCode by eCourtsIndia

Legal principle: A court should distinguish the medical fact itself from the conduct of the spouses in response to that fact.

B. Special Marriage Act, 1954

The Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides another important framework for civil marriages.

Section 24 deals with void marriages, while Section 25 addresses voidable marriages. Section 27 provides grounds for divorce.

Where a party alleges that a medical or reproductive fact was concealed before a civil marriage, the court must identify the applicable statutory provision rather than assume that any concealment automatically invalidates the marriage.

The Act does not establish a general rule that genetic or reproductive incompatibility makes a marriage void. The precise statutory ground, supporting evidence, and applicable procedural requirements must be examined. The official statutory text is available through India Code: Special Marriage Act, 1954. India Code

4. Important Case Laws on Biological Compatibility Divorce Claims

The following judgments establish principles relevant to infertility, impotence, medical examinations, genetic testing, privacy, and biological parentage.

Case 1: Pramila Shankar Ghante v. Shankar Vishwanath Ghante (2012)

Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2012 (7) ALL MR 1

Facts

The dispute involved an allegation that the wife was incapable of consummating the marriage. The evidence relied upon by the husband supported infertility, but the court distinguished infertility from impotence.

Legal issue

Could infertility alone establish impotence and justify annulment under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act?

Judgment and principle

The Bombay High Court held that infertility and impotence are distinct conditions. Evidence that a spouse cannot conceive does not, without more, prove that consummation of the marriage is impossible.

The court set aside the decree of nullity because the evidence did not establish the necessary incapacity to consummate the marriage. NearLaw

Importance

This is one of the most directly relevant Indian authorities for biological compatibility disputes.

Rule: A spouse cannot establish a right to annulment merely by proving that the other spouse is infertile.

The court must examine the actual statutory ground and the evidence supporting it.

Case 2: Yuvraj Digvijay Sinhji v. Yuvrani Pratap Kumari (1969)

Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: (1969) 2 SCC 279

Legal issue

What must be established to obtain annulment on the ground of impotence?

Principle

The Supreme Court considered impotence in the context of matrimonial nullity. The relevant legal inquiry concerns the capacity to consummate the marriage, not simply reproductive success.

The decision is cited in later authorities addressing the distinction between impotence and infertility and the evidentiary requirements for annulment. High Court of Tripura

Importance

The case reinforces the need for a precise connection between the medical condition and the statutory ground invoked.

A court should not substitute a general finding of biological incompatibility for proof of the specific incapacity required by law.

Case 3: Raghunath v. Vijaya (1972)

Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: AIR 1972 Bom 132

Legal issue

Does concealing a medical condition necessarily amount to fraud sufficient to annul a marriage?

Principle

The decision is cited for the proposition that concealment of a medical condition, including curable epilepsy, does not automatically amount to fraud under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The statutory question is whether the concealment satisfies the applicable legal test of fraud, rather than whether the information would have been desirable to know before marriage. High Court of Tripura

Importance

This principle is relevant where one spouse alleges that the other concealed:

• A reproductive disorder.
• A hereditary condition.
• A medical condition affecting sexual relations.
• A condition requiring continuing medical treatment.

However, the decision should not be read as establishing that concealment can never justify annulment. The materiality of the information and the circumstances of consent remain important.

Case 4: R. Lakshmi Narayan v. Santhi (2001)

Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: (2001) 4 SCC 688

Legal issue

When can a mental disorder justify annulment under the Hindu Marriage Act?

Principle

The Supreme Court explained that the relevant statutory conditions must be established through cogent evidence. A diagnosis or label alone does not automatically justify declaring a marriage voidable.

The court must assess the nature and extent of the condition against the statutory requirements. IndiaCode by eCourtsIndia

Relevance to biological compatibility

Although this is not an infertility case, it illustrates an important evidentiary principle: the existence of a medical condition and the legal consequences of that condition are separate questions.

A court must not infer legal incapacity merely from a diagnosis.

Case 5: Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003)

Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: (2003) 4 SCC 493

Facts and legal issue

In matrimonial proceedings, a dispute arose over whether a civil court could direct a party to undergo a medical examination.

The Supreme Court considered the relationship between the court's power to obtain relevant evidence and the individual's right to privacy.

Judgment and principle

The Supreme Court recognized that a matrimonial court can, in appropriate circumstances, direct a medical examination where the applicant establishes a strong prima facie case and sufficient material supports the request.

The decision does not authorize indiscriminate medical testing. The court must consider the necessity and circumstances of the proposed examination. Sci API

Importance

In a biological compatibility dispute, a court may have to determine whether medical evidence is necessary to resolve a specific issue.

Examples include:

• Whether a claimed condition affects consummation.
• Whether a medical allegation is supported by evidence.
• Whether an examination is genuinely necessary to decide a pleaded matrimonial ground.

A spouse should not be subjected to invasive testing merely because the other spouse suspects infertility or genetic incompatibility.

Case 6: Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993)

Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: (1993) 3 SCC 418

Legal issue

Can a court routinely order blood tests to establish the paternity of a child?

Judgment and principle

The Supreme Court held that blood testing should not be ordered as a matter of course. The court must consider whether there is a strong prima facie case, whether the application amounts to a fishing inquiry, and what consequences testing may have for the child and family.

The judgment is a leading authority on judicial caution in paternity testing. Its principles were later discussed in decisions including Sharda v. Dharmpal and Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women. Sci API

Importance

Biological parentage disputes may arise during divorce proceedings, but the mere desire to establish genetic truth does not automatically justify DNA testing.

Courts must balance the relevance of the evidence against privacy, dignity, and the child's interests.

Case 7: Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women (2010)

Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: (2010) 8 SCC 633

Legal issue

Can an authority direct DNA testing in a matrimonial or family dispute without satisfying the applicable legal requirements?

Judgment and principle

The Supreme Court emphasized that DNA testing cannot be ordered routinely. There must be a strong prima facie case, and the decision-maker must carefully examine whether testing is necessary to resolve the dispute.

The Court also clarified that the power to direct medical or genetic testing must be exercised by a legally competent authority in accordance with the applicable law. Sci API

Relevance

Suppose a spouse claims that a child conceived during marriage is not biologically related to the husband and requests DNA testing as part of a divorce dispute.

The court must consider:

• Whether the allegation is supported by credible evidence.
• Whether the test is necessary to decide the issue.
• Whether alternative evidence is available.
• Whether the child's privacy and welfare would be harmed.

The court must not permit DNA testing to become a routine instrument of matrimonial harassment.

Case 8: Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015)

Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: (2015) 1 SCC 365

Facts

The husband sought divorce and alleged that his wife had engaged in adultery. He requested DNA testing in connection with the allegation.

Legal issue

Could a DNA test be ordered when biological evidence was relevant to an allegation of adultery in divorce proceedings?

Judgment and principle

The Supreme Court upheld the direction for DNA testing in the circumstances of the case. It recognized that such testing could be permitted when it was necessary for a just decision, subject to balancing the interests of the parties.

The Court also considered the consequences of refusing to comply with the testing direction, including the possibility of an adverse inference under the law of evidence. Cornelia

Importance

This decision demonstrates that biological evidence can be relevant to a matrimonial dispute without creating a separate legal ground called biological incompatibility.

The underlying cause of action was adultery, not genetic incompatibility.

Legal distinction: DNA evidence may help prove or disprove a recognized matrimonial allegation, but its relevance does not automatically establish a right to divorce.

Case 9: Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023)

Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2023 INSC 146

Legal issue

Should a court order DNA testing of a child simply because a spouse alleges adultery?

Judgment and principle

The Supreme Court rejected the request for DNA testing in the circumstances before it. It stressed the importance of the child's interests, privacy, and the need to establish that testing is genuinely necessary.

The judgment reinforced the principle that DNA testing in matrimonial litigation must be approached cautiously rather than ordered automatically whenever paternity is disputed. S Jain & Attorneys

Importance

This decision is particularly relevant to claims involving biological parentage.

A spouse cannot automatically demand genetic testing of a child merely to investigate the other spouse's conduct.

The court must assess the specific pleadings, evidence, necessity of testing, and consequences for the child.

Case 10: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1

Legal issue

Does the Constitution of India recognize privacy as a fundamental right?

Judgment and principle

A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court recognized privacy as a fundamental right protected under Article 21 and the broader constitutional framework.

Privacy includes interests connected with bodily integrity, personal autonomy, and decisions concerning intimate aspects of life.

Application to biological compatibility claims

The constitutional principles recognized in Puttaswamy are relevant when matrimonial proceedings involve demands for:

• Genetic testing.
• Disclosure of reproductive medical records.
• Examination of sexual or reproductive capacity.
• Disclosure of hereditary conditions.
• Testing of embryos or biological samples.

However, privacy is not an absolute bar to the collection of relevant evidence. A court must assess the legal authority for testing, its necessity, proportionality, and the rights of the persons affected.

The judgment must be read alongside Sharda v. Dharmpal, which specifically considered medical examinations in matrimonial litigation. Sci API

5. Can Infertility Be a Ground for Divorce?

This is one of the most important questions in biological compatibility litigation.

General rule

Infertility, by itself, is not an independent statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

A marriage is not automatically invalid because the spouses cannot conceive naturally.

Infertility may result from:

• Male-factor infertility.
• Female-factor infertility.
• Conditions affecting both spouses.
• Unexplained infertility.
• Age-related reproductive changes.
• Medical treatment or other physiological factors.

The legal consequences depend on the applicable matrimonial statute and the circumstances of the case.

Situation A: One spouse is infertile

If a husband or wife cannot conceive, the other spouse cannot automatically obtain divorce merely by proving that medical fact.

A petition would have to establish a recognized legal ground.

For example, if the claim is based on impotence under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the relevant issue is whether the marriage was not consummated owing to impotence—not whether conception was impossible.

The Bombay High Court's decision in Pramila Shankar Ghante illustrates this distinction. NearLaw

Situation B: Infertility was concealed before marriage

Suppose one spouse knew of a serious reproductive condition before marriage but did not disclose it.

The other spouse may consider seeking annulment based on fraud under Section 12(1)(c), if the marriage is governed by the Hindu Marriage Act.

However, the claimant must establish that the facts satisfy the statutory requirements. Concealment is not automatically fraud merely because the information would have influenced the decision to marry.

The court may examine the nature of the condition, the alleged misrepresentation, the circumstances of consent, and the statutory restrictions on annulment. IndiaCode by eCourtsIndia

Situation C: Infertility causes serious matrimonial conflict

Consider a situation in which one spouse repeatedly humiliates the other because of infertility.

The legally relevant issue may be cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The court would consider the nature, frequency, seriousness, and overall context of the conduct. It would also examine whether the evidence establishes cruelty under the applicable legal standard.

The spouse who is infertile should not automatically be treated as responsible for the breakdown of the marriage.

Situation D: The spouses cannot conceive naturally

If both spouses are unable to conceive naturally, they may consider assisted reproductive treatment, adoption where legally available, counselling, separation, or divorce by mutual consent.

Neither spouse is automatically required to undergo fertility treatment or accept a particular reproductive intervention simply to preserve the marriage.

6. Genetic Incompatibility and Divorce

Genetic incompatibility raises different legal questions from infertility.

For example, two prospective parents may discover through genetic counselling that they carry variants associated with a serious inherited disorder.

The discovery may create difficult personal and reproductive decisions. Nevertheless, genetic risk does not automatically establish that the marriage is invalid.

A. Genetic risk is not necessarily a disease

A genetic test may identify a predisposition, carrier status, or probability of transmitting a condition.

It does not necessarily establish that either spouse has a disease or that a future child will develop one.

Courts should therefore avoid treating genetic risk as proof of incapacity, misconduct, or unfitness for marriage.

B. Can concealed genetic information justify annulment?

Potentially, a party could argue that a specific misrepresentation concerning a serious genetic condition affected consent to marriage.

But whether this succeeds depends on the governing statute, the precise representation, the materiality of the information, the evidence, and the statutory requirements for annulment.

There is no general rule that every undisclosed hereditary condition makes a marriage voidable.

C. Can genetic incompatibility justify divorce?

Not automatically.

A spouse seeking divorce must ordinarily establish a ground recognized by the applicable matrimonial law.

The mere fact that the spouses face an increased risk of transmitting an inherited condition does not, by itself, establish cruelty, impotence, or fraud.

D. Can a court compel genetic testing?

A court may consider a properly supported request for medical or genetic testing where the evidence is legally relevant and the applicable requirements are met.

Nevertheless, Sharda v. Dharmpal, Bhabani Prasad Jena, and Aparna Ajinkya Firodia demonstrate the importance of necessity, judicial discretion, privacy, and the consequences of testing. Sci API

A genetic test should not become a mechanism for coercing a spouse into a particular reproductive decision or stigmatizing a person because of a hereditary condition.

7. Biological Parentage, DNA Testing, and Divorce Claims

Biological parentage disputes frequently overlap with divorce proceedings.

A husband may allege that a child is not biologically his. A wife may dispute the allegation. The child may also have interests in privacy, family relationships, and legal parentage.

These disputes require a careful distinction between three concepts.

These concepts may overlap, but they are not necessarily identical.

A. Is a DNA test conclusive?

A properly conducted DNA test can provide powerful scientific evidence of a genetic relationship. However, the legal consequences of the result depend on the issue before the court and the applicable law.

The court must also consider whether testing was lawfully ordered and whether the evidence is admissible and reliable.

B. Can refusal to undergo testing prove adultery?

Not automatically.

The court must consider the circumstances of the refusal, the evidence already available, the nature of the allegations, and the applicable rules of evidence.

An adverse inference may be possible in appropriate circumstances, but refusal should not be treated as automatic proof of every allegation made by the opposing spouse.

C. Can a child be compelled to undergo DNA testing?

The child's interests must be carefully considered.

The Supreme Court's decisions in Goutam Kundu, Bhabani Prasad Jena, and Aparna Ajinkya Firodia demonstrate that paternity testing should not be ordered routinely and that privacy, dignity, and the consequences for the child matter. Sci API

D. Can a biological parentage dispute automatically terminate a marriage?

No. The parentage dispute and the right to divorce are separate legal questions.

A spouse must establish the relevant matrimonial ground. DNA evidence may be relevant to a properly pleaded allegation, but it does not independently create a universal right to dissolve a marriage.

8. Biological Compatibility and Constitutional Rights

Biological compatibility claims should be evaluated within the framework of constitutional rights and personal autonomy.

A. Bodily autonomy

Adults generally have significant autonomy over medical treatment and reproductive decisions.

A matrimonial dispute does not automatically entitle one spouse to compel the other to undergo invasive procedures or fertility treatment.

B. Privacy

Genetic and reproductive information can reveal intimate facts about a person's health, biological relationships, and family life.

The constitutional principles recognized in K.S. Puttaswamy are therefore relevant to the collection and disclosure of such information.

C. Equality and non-discrimination

Infertility, disability, and hereditary conditions should not automatically be treated as evidence that a person is inferior, unfit for marriage, or undeserving of legal protection.

A court should distinguish a genuine statutory issue from a discriminatory assumption about a person's biological characteristics.

D. Reproductive freedom

A dispute about biological compatibility does not automatically give either spouse a legal right to dictate the other's reproductive choices.

Decisions concerning medical intervention, fertility treatment, and other intimate matters require careful consideration of consent, applicable legislation, and the rights of the persons concerned.

9. Evidence Required in a Biological Compatibility Divorce Claim

The appropriate evidence depends on the specific legal ground.

A. Medical evidence

Relevant material may include:

• Reports from qualified medical specialists.
• Diagnostic test results.
• Records of fertility treatment.
• Evidence concerning the timing and nature of a medical condition.
• Expert opinions explaining the condition's relevance to the pleaded issue.

A diagnosis should not be treated as conclusive proof of a legal ground without examining what it actually establishes.

B. Evidence of concealment or misrepresentation

Where fraud is alleged, relevant evidence may include:

• Statements made before marriage.
• Medical disclosures or representations.
• Correspondence between the parties.
• Medical records lawfully obtained.
• Evidence concerning when the alleged fraud was discovered.

The court must determine whether the alleged conduct satisfies the statutory definition of fraud.

C. Evidence of cruelty

Where cruelty is alleged, relevant evidence may include:

• Communications containing threats or humiliation.
• Witness testimony.
• Relevant medical or counselling records.
• Evidence of repeated abusive conduct.
• Other material demonstrating the nature and consequences of the alleged treatment.

The fact that a couple experienced infertility or reproductive difficulties does not itself establish cruelty.

D. DNA evidence

Where parentage is disputed, a court may consider:

• The specific issue requiring determination.
• The existing evidence.
• The necessity of genetic testing.
• The interests of the child.
• The privacy and dignity of the parties.
• The applicable statutory presumptions and rules of evidence.

The Supreme Court's decisions establish that genetic testing should not be ordered merely to satisfy curiosity or enable an unrestricted investigation into family relationships. Sci API

10. Practical Legal Remedies

The appropriate remedy depends on the facts and the governing matrimonial statute.

The applicable legislation depends on the form of marriage and the parties' circumstances. The Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act should not be treated as interchangeable.

11. Comparative Perspective

Biological compatibility disputes are not confined to India.

Other jurisdictions also distinguish reproductive incapacity, medical nondisclosure, genetic information, and legal parentage. However, the precise rules differ considerably.

For example, a jurisdiction may treat certain forms of fraud as grounds for annulment, while another may require proof of a narrowly defined statutory condition. Rules governing infertility, medical privacy, genetic discrimination, and assisted reproduction may also differ.

Indian judgments should therefore be applied according to Indian legislation and binding precedent. Foreign judgments may offer comparative insights, but they do not automatically determine the outcome of an Indian matrimonial case.

12. Critical Analysis: Should Biological Compatibility Be an Independent Ground for Divorce?

There are arguments both for and against recognizing a separate ground of biological incompatibility.

Arguments supporting recognition

First, informed marital consent: A serious and deliberately concealed medical fact might affect an individual's decision to marry.

Second, reproductive expectations: Some couples regard having biological children as an important aspect of their shared future.

Third, evidentiary clarity: A clearly defined statutory framework could help courts distinguish genuine medical issues from unsupported allegations.

Arguments against recognition

First, risk of discrimination: Recognizing broad biological incompatibility as a ground for divorce could stigmatize infertile people and people with genetic conditions.

Second, uncertainty: Medical science cannot always predict fertility, hereditary outcomes, or the success of treatment with certainty.

Third, bodily autonomy: A separate ground might create pressure to undergo medical examinations, fertility treatment, or genetic testing.

Fourth, misuse: A spouse could use allegations of biological incompatibility to harass the other spouse or obtain a divorce without proving an established legal ground.

A balanced legal approach

A more principled approach is to assess the actual legal issue:

1. Is the claim about inability to consummate the marriage?
2. Is the claim about concealment or fraud?
3. Is the claim about cruelty or other matrimonial misconduct?
4. Is genetic testing necessary to resolve a genuine dispute?
5. Are privacy, bodily autonomy, and the interests of children adequately protected?
6. Does the evidence establish the elements of a recognized legal remedy?

This approach preserves access to legitimate matrimonial remedies without treating biological difference as inherently wrongful.

13. Conclusion

Biological Compatibility Divorce Claims are best understood as a category of matrimonial disputes, not as an independent, universally recognized ground for divorce under Indian law.

The principal legal conclusions are:

Infertility and impotence are different. Pramila Shankar Ghante v. Shankar Vishwanath Ghante illustrates why infertility alone cannot establish impotence under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Medical nondisclosure does not automatically establish fraud. The applicable statutory requirements must be proved.

Biological incompatibility is not automatically a ground for divorce. A petitioner must establish a recognized statutory ground.

DNA testing is not automatic. Goutam Kundu, Bhabani Prasad Jena, Sharda, and Aparna Ajinkya Firodia demonstrate the importance of evidentiary necessity, privacy, and judicial discretion.

Biological parentage and legal parentage are distinct questions. A DNA result does not automatically resolve every issue concerning a child's legal status or the validity of a marriage.

Constitutional rights remain important. Privacy, bodily autonomy, equality, and reproductive freedom must be considered alongside the legitimate evidentiary needs of matrimonial proceedings.

The central principle is that the law should evaluate the specific medical fact, the alleged conduct, and the statutory ground separately rather than presume that biological incompatibility itself makes a marriage legally defective.

Legal note: This is a general research overview, not advice on an individual case. The outcome of a biological compatibility dispute will depend on the applicable matrimonial statute, the pleadings, the medical evidence, and the relevant binding judgments.