Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

'Refusal of Physical Intimacy Amounts to Mental Cruelty: High Court Grants Divorce on Grounds of Non-Consummation and Mental Cruelty

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a latest judgement, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh granted a divorce decree on the grounds of non-consummation of marriage and mental cruelty. The case, presided over by Hon'ble Justice Sheel Nagu and Hon'ble Justice Vinay Saraf, involved an appeal by Sudeepto Saha against the trial court’s decision dismissing his plea for divorce from his wife, Moumita Saha.

Justice Saraf, in his observation, noted, "Unilateral refusal to have sexual intercourse for a considerable period without any physical incapacity or valid reason can amount to mental cruelty." This pivotal statement underpinned the court's decision, acknowledging the severe impact of denial of physical intimacy in a marital relationship.

The appellant, Sudeepto Saha, had filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging that his marriage, solemnized on July 12, 2006, was never consummated due to his wife's refusal of cohabitation. He also claimed mental cruelty, citing his wife's alleged affair, false accusations against his family, and her subsequent desertion.

Despite repeated notices, the respondent, Moumita Saha, did not appear in court, further supporting the appellant's claims of desertion and lack of interest in the marriage. The High Court criticized the trial court's failure to recognize the mental cruelty inflicted upon the appellant, overturning its previous judgment.

The High Court's decision, referencing notable precedents such as Samer Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh and Sukhendu Das Vs. Rita Mukherjee, reinforces the concept of mental cruelty as a legitimate ground for divorce. It emphasizes the significance of mutual respect and physical intimacy in a marriage and acknowledges the psychological impact of its denial.

Date Of Decision: 03 January, 2024

SUDEEPTO SAHA  VS MOUMITA SAHA       

 

Similar News