Denial of Sexual Intimacy Cruelty: Under what circumstances did the Supreme Court consider denial of sexual relations as mental cruelty? Why did the court use Article 142 in the case of this doctor couple who had been living separately for 15 years? What is the principle of ‘Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage’ and how did the court implement it?
Denial of Sexual Intimacy Cruelty: In India, marriage is not just considered a social institution but a lifelong commitment. But when two people start living separate lives for years, no longer have any real role in each other’s life and the marital relationship remains limited to papers only, then can the law force such a relationship to continue forever?
The Supreme Court gave an important decision on this question and ended the 18 year old marriage. The court said that situations like prolonged physical and emotional distance in marital life, non-discharge of marital responsibilities and persistent refusal of sexual relations can amount to mental cruelty. The Court also held that when the marriage has completely broken down and there is no possibility of reunion, it is not appropriate to keep such a relationship alive merely as a legal formality.
Also read: Laborer’s son made an officer, your perspective of life will change after reading the story of these 3 students of Khan sir
What was the whole matter?
This case is related to Sonal Talpade vs Veerbhan Singh. Both of them were married on 5 December 2007 as per Hindu customs. The wife was a gynecologist in a government hospital in Gujarat, while the husband was a doctor in the service of the Rajasthan government.
According to court records, after marriage, both the husband and wife were able to live together only for two to three months in total. After this, the distance between them kept increasing and both were living separately for more than 15 years. There was no child from the marriage.
The husband alleged in the court that he faced mental cruelty during his marital life and the wife never showed any genuine desire to maintain marital relations. On the other hand, the wife kept talking about saving the marriage and opposed divorce.
Why did the court consider that the relationship has ended?
The Supreme Court said in its decision that matrimonial disputes cannot be viewed only through the prism of technical legal sections. The court also has to see to what extent both the parties have discharged their marital obligations.
The bench found that the cohabitation between the husband and wife was very limited and even in the initial stages of their marriage, their thoughts, lifestyle and marital expectations were completely different from each other. Neither of them made effective efforts to revive the relationship for a long time.
‘Refusal of sexual relations can also be mental cruelty’
The most important aspect of the judgment was that the court emphasized the importance of physical closeness and conjugal relations in marital life.
Citing its old decisions, the Supreme Court said that when the husband and wife remain separated for a long time, the marital relationship ends completely and there is no real existence of married life, then this situation can take the form of mental cruelty.
The court held that marriage is not just a legal contract but also an emotional, social and physical partnership. If this partnership completely dissolves over the years, it impacts the mental health and personal freedom of both parties.
Court considered separation for 15 years as an important fact
The Supreme Court said that the husband and wife had chosen different professional and geographical paths. Both were working in their respective states and there was no real marital relationship between them for more than one and a half decade.
The court remarked that “desertion” in such cases cannot be considered the fault of only one person. When both parties continue to live separate lives for a long time and make no concerted effort to save the relationship, it becomes a collective abandonment of the marriage structure.
Every attempt at compromise failed
Efforts were made to bring the two together at the level of Family Court, Rajasthan High Court and later in the Supreme Court also. Mediation and conciliation processes were adopted, but no solution could be reached. The court acknowledged that relations between the two had become so strained that the possibility of reunion was almost lost.
Marriage ended using Article 142
The Supreme Court dissolved the marriage using its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The bench said that this relationship has already practically ended. In such a situation, keeping it alive only on paper would be like increasing mental pain and disappointment for both the parties. The court made an important observation in the judgment that prolonged matrimonial litigation often leaves the marriage a mere “paper relationship”. Continuing to carry a dying relationship can hinder a person’s social, mental and emotional development.
Also read: In a world crisis, India did wonders! 7.7% GDP growth surprised everyone