Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that not allowing a spouse to have sexual intercourse for a long time without sufficient reason, itself amounts to mental cruelty to such spouse.

The bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Rajendra Kumar observed so while allowing an appeal moved by a man against the dismissal of his divorce petition by the family court.

The man had entered into marriage with a woman in the year 1979. As per the traditions in the community, his wife's Gauna (when a bride is brought to her matrimonial house permanently) was performed after seven years of marriage. 

The husband alleged that after the Gauna, for some time, the behavior and conduct of his wife was good but suddenly she changed her gait and refused to live with him as a wife. He claimed that even after lots of convincing, she did not establish any physical relationship with him. 

The man further alleged that only for a short while he and his wife lived under the same roof as after some time of the Gauna ceremony, his wife voluntarily began to live separately at her parents' house.

The man was serving in the police department, therefore, he had to go and reside at the place of his posting. He claimed that after six months of Gauna, when he returned home and asked his wife to come back from her parents' house, she denied and proposed divorce by consent. Resultantly, in 1994, before the village panchayat, the couple arrived at an agreement of divorce. Thereafter, the man remarried.

The man sought a decree of divorce on the basis of mental cruelty, long desertion and the divorce agreement of 1994, but, despite sufficient service of notices, the wife did not turn up before the family court, therefore, the case was directed to proceed ex-parte.

However, after examining the entire evidence led by the man, the family court did not find his case proved and dismissed it. 

In the appeal, the high court noted that there was nothing on record to disbelieve the man's case as well as his uncontroverted evidence.

Court pointed out that the court below had observed that the papers filed by the man were only photocopies which were not admissible in evidence and also, there was nothing on record to show that the wife of the man had remarried. 

On the other hand, the high court stressed that it was evident from the record that since long, the parties to the marriage had been living separately, and the wife had denied discharging the obligation of marital liability.

The high court opined that the court below had adopted a hyper technical approach and passed the order of dismissal of the man's case. 

Therefore, while stressing that there is no acceptable view in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort, court set aside the order of the lower court and granted a divorce decree to the man. 

Case Title: Ravindra Pratap Yadav v. Smt. Asha Devi And Others