Persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without a reasonable cause amounts to mental cruelty: SC
The Supreme Court dissolves the marriage of an estranged doctor couple from Rajasthan who had been living separately for more than 15 years and had no children
Noting that prolonged pendency of matrimonial litigation only leads to perpetuity of marriage on paper, the Supreme Court has dissolved the marriage of an estranged doctor couple from Rajasthan who had been living separately for more than 15 years and had no children.
“It is in the best interest of parties and society if ties are severed between parties in cases where litigation has been pending for a considerably long period of time…Consequently, this court is of the opinion that such matrimonial litigation pending in court needs to be put to end by granting effective release to the parties from a stale and frozen relationship,” a Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih said in its June 2 judgment.
The top court used its inherent discretionary powers under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage, noting that prolongation of such “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 creating foul sociological, psychological and mental hollowness in life resulting in denial of a free and independent environment to flourish which each human strives in body and soul”.
The Rajasthan High Court had granted divorce in favour of the husband on many grounds, including cruelty committed by the wife against him by denying sexual relations on several occasions. But the wife challenged the high court’s verdict before the top court.
Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Masih upheld the high court’s verdict noting, "Courts in India have repeatedly established that withholding sexual intimacy inflicts severe emotional distress and undermines the bedrock of marriage."
Denial of conjugal rights including persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without a reasonable cause constituted mental cruelty and was a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, Justice Masih said, citing top court’s judgments.
Married in December 2007, the doctor couple had no children. While the wife worked in Gujarat, the husband was employed in Rajasthan. The parties had lived separately for far too long a period of time and there was no sanctity left in the marriage, it said.
“It is a deeply personal and social partnership built on mutual respect, shared expectations and equal responsibility. When two parties enter into matrimony, they weave a tapestry of interdependence that demands a continuous balancing of interests,” it said.
“This court is conscious of the view that the approach of the courts should be to preserve the sanctity of marriage and the court should be reluctant to dissolve the marriage at the mere asking of one of the parties,” the top court said.
Although it was claimed by the wife, it said, that she had left her job in Gujarat and started living in Rajasthan, no evidence has come on record to substantiate the claim.
“Rather the evidence on record is to the contrary and it is not disputed that she still continues with her job in Gujarat. There appears to be no intention on her part to join the company of the husband as actions speak more than the dry words,” the Bench said.
