Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the divorce granted to the husband on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It found that the wife's persistent denial of conjugal relations, and some 15 years of separation without any attempt to reconcile, amounted to mental cruelty, and that an appellate court may consider such prolonged separation. It also dissolved the marriage under Article 142 as irretrievably broken down.
Issues
- Whether the respondent-husband proved mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Whether an appellate court may treat prolonged separation and the parties' conduct during the litigation as indicating mental cruelty, even though desertion was not pleaded.
- Whether the marriage had broken down irretrievably so as to warrant dissolution under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Provisions considered
- Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955The Court held that persistent refusal of sexual relations without reasonable cause is mental cruelty under this clause. It also held that long separation without effort at reconciliation can be treated as mental cruelty, so the decree of divorce granted by the High Court was upheld. (¶¶ 4, 18, 19, 25, 26)
- Section 13(1)(ib), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955Desertion was not formally pleaded. The Court nonetheless viewed fifteen years of separate lives with no reciprocal effort to cohabit as a shared, de facto abandonment of the marriage, relevant to the assessment of cruelty. (¶¶ 21, 25, 27, 28)
- Article 142(1), Constitution of IndiaApplying the factors in Shilpa Sailesh, the Court dissolved the marriage as irretrievably broken down to do complete justice. It relied on separation of over 15 years, failed mediation, the absence of children, and both parties being financially independent government doctors. (¶¶ 26, 29, 32, 34, 35, 37)
Held
- The allegation that the wife insulted the husband before a shopkeeper was rightly rejected by the Family Court. The husband's own evidence, which the wife did not deny, showed that during their short cohabitation she locked her room and the parties slept in separate rooms. The finding of cruelty was therefore correct. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Denial of conjugal rights, including persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without reasonable cause, is mental cruelty and a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia). (¶ 19)
- Conjugal rights are the counterpart of conjugal duties. Persistent withdrawal from the basic aspects of marriage can have legal consequences when mental cruelty is assessed, and the refusal of both spouses to accommodate each other over a long period can amount to cruelty to one another. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
- Because an appeal is a continuation of the suit, an appellate court may consider the parties' conduct during the litigation. While ensuring that no party profits from its own wrong, it may treat prolonged separation without genuine reconciliation efforts as an indicator of mental cruelty. Confirming a divorce on that basis applies the statutory ground; it is not an exercise of Article 142. (¶¶ 25, 26)
- Although desertion was not pleaded, spouses who pursue separate professional and geographical lives for fifteen years with no effort to bridge the distance have, objectively, both abandoned the marriage. (¶¶ 27, 28)
- The marriage had irretrievably broken down: there were over 15 years of separation, mediation had failed, there were no children, the wife continued her job in Gujarat with no sign of an intention to join the husband, and both parties were financially independent. It was a fit case to dissolve the marriage under Article 142(1) to do complete justice. (¶¶ 30, 34, 35, 36, 37)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the decree of divorce upheld and the marriage also dissolved under Article 142 of the Constitution; no order as to costs.