Persistent Refusal of Marital Relations Without Just Cause Is Mental Cruelty, Divorce Ground: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has held that withholding sexual intimacy within marriage can cause severe emotional distress and may amount to mental cruelty, especially when it reflects a persistent refusal to fulfil the basic obligations of married life. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih made the remarks while upholding a Rajasthan High Court decision that granted divorce to a doctor on the ground of cruelty.

The Court said marriage cannot be treated as a mere contract or reduced to a narrow claim over conjugal rights. It described marriage as a deeply personal and social partnership based on mutual respect, shared expectations and equal responsibility. According to the Bench, conjugal rights and conjugal duties are inseparable, and one spouse cannot insist on the benefits of marriage while abandoning the responsibilities that come with it.

The case involved a couple married on December 5, 2007, in Gujarat under Hindu rites. The wife was working as a gynaecologist in a government hospital in Gujarat, while the husband, also a doctor, was employed in Rajasthan. The husband alleged that the wife lived with him at the matrimonial home in Bharatpur for only two to three months during their two years of cohabitation, before they eventually separated. He claimed he was subjected to cruelty and sought divorce.

The wife denied the allegations and told the courts that she did not want the marriage to end. She maintained this position before the family court, the High Court and the Supreme Court. However, the Bench noted that the parties had lived separately for more than 15 years and had cohabited for only two to three months during an 18-year marriage. No child was born from the marriage. Despite repeated efforts by the courts to bring about reconciliation, no settlement was reached.

The Supreme Court found that even during the short period when they lived together, the couple failed to perform basic marital responsibilities. The Court referred to evidence showing that the wife would sleep early, lock her room from inside and not respond when the husband knocked. The husband slept in a separate room, and the wife did not dispute that they were living separately within the house.

The Bench said the long separation, the absence of reconciliation and the complete breakdown of marital interaction showed that the relationship had become stale and frozen. It observed that although desertion had not been specifically pleaded as a legal ground, the facts showed a de facto abandonment of the matrimonial covenant by both parties. The Court said matrimonial disputes must be judged on the overall conduct of the spouses, not only on formal legal labels.

Finding no realistic possibility of reunion, the Supreme Court held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. Using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, it dissolved the marriage and said prolonging the relationship would only deepen frustration in a dead marriage.