Prolonged Separation and Denial of Conjugal Rights Constitute Mental Cruelty and Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

The parties, both doctors in government service, married on 05.12.2007

The Respondent-husband filed for divorce in 2009 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), alleging cruelty due to sociocultural differences and an extremely short period of cohabitation (2-3 months over 18 years)

While the Family Court dismissed the petition in 2018 for failure to prove cruelty, the High Court of Rajasthan reversed this decision on appeal, granting a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion

The Appellant-wife challenged this reversal, maintaining her desire to continue the marriage despite a 15-year separation and failed mediation

1. Whether the Appellant-wife’s conduct, specifically the denial of conjugal rights and persistent withdrawal from cohabitation, constitutes 'mental cruelty' under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA

2. Whether a long period of continuous separation can be treated as a ground for dissolution of marriage by an Appellate Court

3. Whether the marriage has broken down irretrievably, warranting the exercise of the Supreme Court's extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution

The Court applied Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, regarding cruelty

It relied heavily on the precedent in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, which established that a unilateral refusal to have sexual intercourse for a considerable period and long continuous separation may amount to mental cruelty

It further applied the principles from Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, which empowers the Supreme Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India to dissolve a marriage on the ground of "irretrievable breakdown" to do complete justice, even if such a ground is not explicitly provided in the HMA

The Court observed that the parties lived together for only a negligible period and had been separated for over 15 years without any child or successful reconciliation

The Court found that the Appellant's conduct—including sleeping in a separate locked room and denying sexual intimacy—undermined the "bedrock of marriage" and constituted mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia)

The Court reasoned that marriage is a "shared covenant" of reciprocal duties, and a persistent withdrawal from these duties, coupled with the "intentional maintenance of distinct lifestyles," establishes a de facto abandonment of the matrimonial framework

It held that an Appellate Court can legitimately treat such prolonged separation and emotional alienation as indicators of mental cruelty, especially when subsequent events during the pendency of litigation confirm the relationship is "emotionally dead"

The Court held that the denial of conjugal rights without reasonable cause constitutes mental cruelty

Exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court declared the marriage irretrievably broken down, noting that compelling the parties to maintain a "stale and frozen relationship" on paper would only escalate frustration and deny them the environment to flourish