The Rajasthan High Court has held that a wife’s unilateral and prolonged refusal of physical relations, without physical incapacity or a valid reason, amounts to mental cruelty, dismissing her appeals against a Family Court decree of divorce.
Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has upheld a Family Court decree dissolving a marriage on the ground of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, holding that a wife’s unilateral refusal of physical relations over a considerable period, without any physical incapacity or valid reason, falls within mental cruelty. The Court also dismissed her plea for restitution of conjugal rights [L v. G].
A Division Bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit dismissed D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 1319/2024 and 1308/2024, filed by the wife against the common judgment of the Family Court, Jaisalmer, dated February 20, 2024. The order was reserved on September 24, 2026 and pronounced on October 6, 2026. The judgment was authored by Justice Purohit.
How the case reached the High Court
The parties married on October 11, 2018. The wife is employed as a Junior Accountant with the Municipal Council, Jaisalmer, and the husband runs a small business at Balotra. The husband petitioned for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty and desertion, while the wife sought restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9. The Family Court heard both petitions together, granted the husband a divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) alone, and dismissed the wife’s petition.
The husband alleged that after about ten days at Balotra the wife moved to Jaisalmer for her job, that he stayed with her there for roughly two weeks, and that she thereafter refused physical relations and cohabitation, taunted him over his occupation and threatened to end her life. He said there had been no physical relations after October 25, 2018.
The wife denied these allegations. She said the husband quarrelled over petty matters, pressed her for money from her salary and neglected her for months. She said she remained willing to live with him as his wife but did not wish to move to Balotra. These were contentions of the parties, and the Court weighed them against the evidence on record.
What the evidence showed
The Bench noted that, in cross-examination, no suggestion was put to the husband that the wife had not refused physical relations after October 25, 2018. The wife admitted that there was no physical incapacity and that the couple had no child. A document placed on record by the husband, which the judgment describes as her own note relating to ending her life, was also admitted by her to have been known to her before the divorce petition was filed, and she had taken no action on it before any authority. On this material the Court recorded:
“without any valid reason, there have been no physical relations between the appellant and the respondent since 25-10-2018”
The legal position
The Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s illustrations of mental cruelty in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, which include a unilateral decision to refuse intercourse for a considerable period without physical incapacity or valid reason. It also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision of June 2, 2026 in Sonal Talpada v. Veerbhan Singh (2026 INSC 620), which it described as the latest reportable judgment on the point, holding that persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without a reasonable cause constitutes mental cruelty and a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia).
What the Court held
Applying these principles, the Bench held:
“the appellant has refused to have physical relations unilaterally for a considerably long period without ‘physical incapacity’ or a valid reason, which falls within the definition of ‘mental cruelty'”
The Court found that the absence of physical relations since October 25, 2018, together with the wife’s refusal and the threats of self-harm noted in the evidence, made out cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia). It held that the decree rested on evidence and law and that interference was not permissible. With the divorce decree standing, it held that restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 was also not permissible in law, affirmed the Family Court’s findings on both issues and dismissed both appeals, disposing of pending stay applications.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling applies the Supreme Court’s recent restatement that cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act is not confined to physical conduct, and that a spouse’s sustained, unexplained withdrawal of marital intimacy can itself be a ground for divorce. It also shows the weight an appellate court gives to what a party concedes or leaves unchallenged in cross-examination.
The order also records that, once a divorce decree on cruelty is upheld, a parallel plea for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be granted, since the two reliefs cannot stand together.
If you or someone you know is struggling with thoughts of self-harm, help is available. Tele-MANAS: 14416 (toll-free, 24×7).
Case Title: L v. G [D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 1319/2024 and 1308/2024]
Bench: Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit, Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur)
Date of Judgment: October 6, 2026
Appearances: Mr. Harshil Vyas for the appellant-wife; Mr. Veer Bajrang Singh, with Mr. JVS Deora, for the respondent-husband