NEW DELHI: <\/em>The Supreme Court<\/a><\/strong> has upheld a divorce granted to a husband after finding that his wife persistently refused marital intimacy without any reasonable cause and stayed away from the matrimonial home for several years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The couple married in December 2007. Both were government doctors. The wife was working in Gujarat, while the husband was posted in Rajasthan. No child was born from the marriage<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the husband, the wife lived with him in Bharatpur for only two to three months<\/strong>. Even during this short period, she allegedly slept in a separate room, locked the door from inside and refused to open it when he knocked.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband filed a divorce petition in 2009 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong>, alleging mental cruelty. The Family Court dismissed his petition after holding that cruelty had not been proved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Rajasthan High Court later reversed the Family Court\u2019s decision and granted divorce to the husband. It considered the refusal of marital relations, long separation and the wife\u2019s absence from the matrimonial home.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. She claimed that she had never abandoned her husband and was always willing to continue the marriage. She also argued that the husband could not be allowed to benefit from his own wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband, however, told the Court that the parties had remained separated for more than 15 years <\/strong>and had lived together for only a few months. He maintained that the wife repeatedly refused sexual relations and made no genuine effort to build a matrimonial life with him.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court accepted the husband\u2019s evidence regarding separate bedrooms and the persistent refusal of marital intimacy.<\/strong> The wife had also not denied that the couple slept in different rooms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court held that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDenial of conjugal rights including persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without a reasonable cause constitutes mental cruelty and is a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n It further observed that withholding physical intimacy can cause serious emotional distress<\/strong> and weaken the basic foundation of a marriage. Therefore, the High Court was correct in granting divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court also explained that marriage creates duties as well as rights.<\/strong> It cannot survive when one spouse demands the benefits of marriage but continuously avoids its essential responsibilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMatrimony, therefore, is not a one-sided right to be enforced, but a shared covenant of emotional support, fidelity, responsibility and care, where the rights of one are always tied to the duties they owe to the other.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The marriage had survived only as a legal formality<\/strong>. The couple had separate homes, separate careers and independent lives. Both were financially stable government doctors, and there were no children whose interests would be affected by the divorce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cProlonged pendency of matrimonial litigation only leads to perpetuity of marriage on paper.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n It further held that forcing two persons to remain tied to a dead marriage only increases frustration and prevents them from living freely and independently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court therefore upheld the divorce granted to the husband on the ground of mental cruelty<\/strong>. It also exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage<\/strong> because it had completely and irretrievably broken down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife\u2019s appeal was dismissed<\/strong>, and the parties were directed to bear their own legal costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND PROVISIONS INVOLVED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Provision<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How It Applied In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Allows divorce for physical or mental cruelty.<\/td> Persistent refusal of intimacy and withdrawal from married life were treated as mental cruelty.<\/td><\/tr> Section 13(1)(ib), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Allows divorce for continuous desertion of at least two years.<\/td> Though not specifically pleaded, the 15-year separation was considered while assessing cruelty.<\/td><\/tr> Article 142(1), Constitution of India<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Allows the Supreme Court to pass orders for complete justice.<\/td> Used to dissolve the marriage because it had completely broken down.<\/td><\/tr> Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage<\/strong><\/td> A marriage with no realistic possibility of reunion.<\/td> The couple lived together briefly and remained separated for over 15 years.<\/td><\/tr> Conjugal Rights and Duties<\/strong><\/td> Spouses owe each other companionship, intimacy and support.<\/td> The Court said matrimonial rights cannot exist without corresponding duties.<\/td><\/tr> Subsequent Events During Appeal<\/strong><\/td> Later conduct may be considered by an appellate court.<\/td> Continued separation and failed reconciliation were considered while deciding divorce.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n