Delhi High Court Says Non Consummation of Marriage Is a Valid Ground for Divorce

The Delhi High Court has upheld a decree of divorce granted to a husband, agreeing with the Family Court’s view that the marriage had never been consummated and that the wife’s conduct amounted to mental cruelty.

A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said it saw no reason to interfere with the factual findings recorded by the Family Court.

“For all the reasons recorded above, this Court finds that the Family Court’s conclusion that the Respondent had proved cruelty on a preponderance of probabilities is supported by the record and does not warrant appellate interference. The Appeal is thus devoid of merit,” the Court observed.

The wife had approached the High Court challenging the Family Court’s order of 15 December 2023, which had allowed the husband’s petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.

While examining the case, the High Court noted that the couple had lived together only for a short period after their marriage on 6 May 2017 and had been living separately since 26 June 2017. The Bench also recorded that several counselling sessions and attempts at conciliation during the proceedings had failed to bring them back together.

The Court observed that such continuous separation from the very beginning of the marriage was a strong indicator that the relationship had broken down irretrievably, and that the circumstances leading to this breakdown had been proved through the husband’s consistent evidence.

In her defence, the wife denied all allegations of cruelty. She maintained that she was ready to cohabit and blamed the husband and his family for neglect, mistreatment, and monetary demands. It was submitted on her behalf that the allegations of non-consummation and refusal of intimacy were fabricated and that the husband was attempting to evade his responsibilities by seeking divorce.

The husband, however, asserted that the marriage had never been consummated because the wife persistently refused physical intimacy. He claimed she avoided household responsibilities, used abusive language, threatened him with false criminal cases, and left the matrimonial home on 26 June 2017 without returning despite repeated requests. This, he said, compelled him to issue a legal notice and eventually file for divorce.

After reviewing the material on record, the High Court stated, “Having examined the record, this Court finds no misappreciation of evidence or error of approach. The finding that the denial of conjugal relations was wilful and persistent, and therefore amounted to mental cruelty, is a permissible conclusion on the evidence. The Family Court undertook such an appraisal, considered the relevant precedents and applied established legal principles including the illustrative parameters of mental cruelty identified in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, and recorded cogent reasons as to why the marriage was dead owing to the appellant’s conduct. This Court is not persuaded that the Family Court’s inferences were arbitrary or based upon inadmissible material.”

The Court thus found no fault with the Family Court’s conclusion that the marriage remained unconsummated due to the wife’s reluctance and that her behaviour amounted to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Bench held that the findings were supported by the record and were not perverse, and therefore did not call for interference.

Case Title: SK v. RR

Bench: Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Order Date: 6 December 2025