For the first time on record, a court in New Delhi, India, granted a divorce to a man because his wife is HIV-positive. The judge allowed the divorce petition on the grounds that "marriage without sex is anathema."

Few facts have been revealed and I find this case troubling. I question the reasoning for the divorce and the public policy implications. Does this divorce send the right message to other couples experiencing similar medical situations?

This couple were married in October 2000, and it's implied that they never had a "cordial" sexual relationship. The wife became pregnant in March 2001 and her doctor advised that she undergo the HIV-1 and Elisa tests. The Elisa test showed she was HIV-positive.

The wife, who worked at a hospital, claimed the test results were erroneous and said she would get tested again in the seventh or eighth month of her pregnancy. The husband objected and persuaded her to undergo another test. The second test also showed she had HIV/AIDS. She had an abortion in July 2001. The husband tested negative, so she was not infected by him.

The judge found the wife guilty of cruelty by not disclosing her status. The court proclaimed that the husband "cannot be reasonably expected to live with her and lead a happy married life."

I thought that marriage was a commitment for better or for worse. While the wife may have been deceitful, if she knew before the marriage that she was infected, there's no evidence to prove it. Was she previously married? Did she have a blood transfusion? Did she work in a laboratory of the hospital?

This judge assumes that sex is the cornerstone of marriage. This assumption undermines the real meaning of the institution of marriage. While condoms are not 100 percent guaranteed to stop transmission of the virus, most experts suggest their use. Observers say that women do not usually leave their infected husbands. By the same token, men should not abandon their wives. What do you think?