Persistent Denial Of Sexual Intimacy Constitute Mental Cruelty; Supreme Court Dissolves 'Dead' Marriage Invoking Article 142

"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 creating foul sociological, psychological and mental hollowness in life," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that the persistent denial of sexual intimacy coupled with a prolonged physical separation of over fifteen years constitutes mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that keeping parties tied to a "dead" marriage only leads to sociological and mental hollowness. The Court emphasized that when a marriage is beyond repair, the law must not serve as a tool to perpetuate a fiction.

The parties, both doctors, married in 2007 but cohabited for only two to three months before the wife moved to Gujarat for her government service while the husband remained in Rajasthan. Following allegations of cruelty and desertion, the husband filed for divorce in 2009. While the Family Court dismissed the petition in 2018, the Rajasthan High Court reversed the decision in 2025, granting a decree of divorce. The wife subsequently moved the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the High Court’s judgment and maintain the matrimonial bond.

The primary question before the Court was whether the persistent denial of sexual intimacy and a 15-year physical separation constitute 'mental cruelty' within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA. The Court also considered whether it was fit to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.

Denial Of Conjugal Rights Amounts To Mental Cruelty

The Court observed that the evidence established a persistent refusal of sexual intimacy by the wife during the brief period of cohabitation. It noted that the wife used to lock her room from the inside and sleep separately, an act the husband testified to and which remained largely undenied. The Bench reiterated that withholding sexual intimacy inflicts severe emotional distress and undermines the very bedrock of a marital relationship.

Referencing the landmark precedent in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), the Court highlighted that a unilateral decision to refuse intercourse for a considerable period without valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. The Bench noted that the Family Court’s initial dismissal of this ground was erroneous, and the High Court was correct in recognizing this conduct as a valid basis for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.

"Withholding sexual intimacy inflicts severe emotional distress and undermines the bedrock of marriage."

Matrimonial Obligations Transcend Professional Permissions

Addressing the wife’s argument that she lived separately because her father-in-law had "allowed" her to work in Gujarat until a nursing home was built in Rajasthan, the Court held that such permissions do not grant a permanent license to abandon matrimonial duties. The Bench observed that both parties had made no genuine efforts to cohabitate or bridge the geographical distance for over a decade.

The Court noted that while the statutory ground of 'desertion' under Section 13(1)(ib) may not have been formally pleaded in the initial petition, the conduct of the parties must be viewed through a broader perspective of cruelty. It held that the intentional maintenance of separate domiciles and the total cessation of interaction for fifteen years established a de facto abandonment of the matrimonial covenant by both sides.

Article 142 Power To Dissolve Irretrievably Broken Marriages

The Court extensively relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) to exercise its discretionary power under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Bench remarked that when a marriage is "totally unworkable, emotionally dead, and beyond salvation," dissolution is the only way forward to do complete justice.

It was noted that the parties had been living separately for more than 15 years and multiple rounds of mediation had failed. The Court emphasized that in such cases, the period of separation—anything above six years—is a relevant factor for the Court to determine if the bond has broken down irretrievably. The Bench observed that since there were no children from the wedlock and both parties were financially independent doctors, a divorce would not have a devastating effect on any third party.

"The law in such cases does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties."

Prolonged Litigation Leads To A Marriage Only On Paper

The Bench expressed concern over the "perpetuity of marriage on paper" through prolonged litigation. It observed that the continuation of a formal legal relationship when the emotional tie is dead only leads to an escalation of frustration. The Court stressed the need to grant parties an effective release from a "stale and frozen relationship" to allow them to flourish in a free and independent environment.

The Court also took note of the bitter nature of the ongoing litigation and the lack of any reciprocal effort to bridge the distance. It concluded that the relationship had reached a point where reconciliation was impossible. Consequently, the Bench found it essential to put an end to the matrimonial litigation by granting a decree of divorce to ensure "complete justice" between the parties.

The Supreme Court dismissed the wife's appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision to grant a divorce. Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court dissolved the marriage between Sonal Talpada and Veerbhan Singh on the grounds of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown. No order as to costs was made.

Date of Decision: June 02, 2026