The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that if a spouse doesn’t allow their partner to have sexual intercourse with them for a long time without a sufficient reason, it amounts to mental cruelty.
While dissolving a couple’s marriage on the ground of mental cruelty, a Bench of Justices Suneet Kumar & Rajendra Kumar-IV held that “Undoubtedly, not allowing a spouse for a long time, to have sexual intercourse by his or her partner, without sufficient reason, that itself amounts mental cruelty to such spouse…Since there is no acceptable view in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is given by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage than that has ceased to in fact.”
The Court heard an appeal filed by a husband against the family court order that rejected his divorce plea under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).
He alleged that after marriage, his wife’s behavior towards him changed drastically, and she refused to cohabit with him. As per the husband they lived under the same roof for some time, the wife intentionally began to live separately after some time at her parents’ house.
However, after 6 months of marriage, when the husband tried to convince her to come back to the matrimonial home to discharge her obligations of marital life, she denied to do so. In July 1994, a Panchayat held in the village where the couple got mutually divorced after the husband paid permanent alimony of ₹22,000 to the wife.
Subsequently, after the wife got re-married, the husband sought a decree of divorce on the basis of mental cruelty & long desertion. However, she didn’t appear in court despite sufficient service through publication.
The family court proceeded with the case ex-parte and rejected the husband’s plea, noting that there were no grounds of cruelty to grant a divorce.
The High Court made certain observations regarding a case involving a husband and a family court. The High Court stated that the family court adopted a hyper-technical approach when dismissing the husband’s case. Further, the court noted that the parties involved in the marriage had been living separately for a significant period of time.
According to the plaintiff-appellant (the husband), the defendant-respondent (the wife) showed no respect for the marital bond and denied to fulfill her marital obligations. The High Court then observed that there had been a complete breakdown of the marriage.
These remarks by the High Court suggest that it acknowledged the existence of significant issues in the marriage and pointed to the family court’s handling in the case, possibly implying that the family court failed to consider substantial problems that led to the breakdown of the marriage.
Thus, the Court set aside the family court & granted the appellant a divorce decree.
