Persistent Refusal of Sexual Relations Without Reason Is Mental Cruelty, Ground for Divorce: Supreme Court
Supreme Court rules persistent denial of conjugal rights can amount to mental cruelty in marriage.
Court said Indian courts have consistently recognised that withholding sexual intimacy can cause severe emotional distress and strike at the foundation of a marriage. It added that persistent withdrawal from the basic aspects of married life may have legal consequences while assessing allegations of mental cruelty.
Denial of Conjugal Rights
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih made these observations while upholding a Rajasthan High Court judgment that granted divorce to a doctor on the ground of cruelty.
"Marriage, in its legal and constitutional dimension, can never be reduced to a mere contractual intersection of individual rights, nor can it be viewed strictly through the narrow lens of a petition for conjugal rights. It is a deeply personal and social partnership built on mutual respect, shared expectations and equal responsibility," the Bench said.
Court emphasised that when two people enter into matrimony, they create a relationship of interdependence that requires a continuous balancing of interests. It said conjugal rights do not exist in isolation and are linked to corresponding conjugal duties.
"To demand the fulfilment of the former while wilfully abandoning the sanctity of the latter is to undermine the very essence of the institution," the Bench observed.
What Were the Facts of the Case?
In the case at hand, Court noted that evidence on record showed that even during the brief period the couple lived together, the wife would sleep early, lock her room from inside and would not open the door despite the husband's knocking. The husband used to sleep in a separate room. The wife had not denied that the two lived in separate rooms.
"The acceptance of the ground of cruelty for grant of divorce is, thus, correct," the Bench said.
Court further observed that matrimony is not a one-sided right to be enforced but a shared covenant involving emotional support, fidelity, responsibility and care. The rights of one spouse are inseparably linked with the duties owed to the other, it said.
Also Read| Court Cannot Force a Husband to Resume Conjugal Life as Bail Condition: Supreme Court
The Bench was informed that the parties had been living separately for more than 15 years and had cohabited for only two to three months during their 18-year-long marriage. No child was born from the marriage.
Considering these circumstances, Court said the prolonged matrimonial litigation should be brought to an end by granting an effective release to the parties from a stale and frozen relationship.
The wife had challenged the Rajasthan High Court's January 2, 2025 judgment, which allowed the husband's appeal and granted him divorce after setting aside a family court order that had dismissed his petition.
The marriage between the parties took place on December 5, 2007, in Gujarat according to Hindu rites. At the time, the wife was serving as a gynaecologist in a government hospital in Gujarat, while the husband, also a doctor, was employed in state service in Rajasthan.
The husband alleged that he was subjected to cruelty and claimed that the wife stayed with him at the matrimonial home in Bharatpur for only two to three months during the two years they were together before he eventually sought divorce.
The wife, however, consistently maintained before the family court, the high court and the Supreme Court that she did not wish to dissolve the marriage and wanted to continue the matrimonial relationship.
Court noted that despite repeated attempts at reconciliation by the courts, no settlement could be reached between the parties.
Had the Marriage Broken Down Irretrievably?
Examining the case, Court considered whether the husband had suffered cruelty in law and whether the marriage had broken down beyond repair, making reconciliation impossible.
Also Read| ‘Don’t Conclude Marriage Is Irretrievably Broken Down Just Because Couple Lives Apart’: SC
Although the husband had not formally pleaded the statutory ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, Court said matrimonial disputes cannot always be viewed through isolated legal labels. Courts are also required to assess the overall conduct of the parties and how they have discharged their matrimonial obligations.
The Bench observed that even during the short period of cohabitation, the parties failed to fulfil their conjugal responsibilities. It said both spouses had strongly held and conflicting views regarding matrimonial life and had refused to accommodate each other for a prolonged period.
Referring to earlier judgments, Court noted that prolonged separation without any possibility of reconciliation has repeatedly been treated as cruelty to both parties.
What Did Court Say on Desertion?
The Bench further observed that while desertion had not been formally pleaded, the facts revealed a situation where both spouses had chosen separate professional and geographical paths and remained completely estranged for over 15 years without making reciprocal efforts to bridge the distance.
"Desertion ceases to be merely a matter of individual malice or unilateral fault; rather it assumes the character of a shared, de facto abandonment of the matrimonial covenant. The parties have objectively deserted the matrimonial framework itself," the Court said.
It added that the maintenance of separate lifestyles, separate residences and the complete cessation of marital interaction for over 15 years demonstrated a de facto abandonment of the marriage by both sides.
Holding that there was no possibility of reunion because of the strained relationship between the parties, Court concluded that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage, observing that the parties had lived separately for far too long and that no sanctity remained in the relationship.
"Prolongation of a matrimonial relationship would further lead not only to escalation of frustration in a dead relationship, which has already decayed and is decomposing day by day," the Bench observed.