The Supreme Court observed that prolonged matrimonial litigation often leaves a marriage existing only on paper. Granting divorce to a couple separated for over 15 years, the Court held that endless legal proceedings cannot preserve a marriage in name alone.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court observed Prolonged matrimonial litigation often results in a marriage continuing only on paper rather than in reality.
While disposing of the divorce dispute between estranged spouses who had been living separately for more than 15 years, the Court held that such extended legal proceedings cannot indefinitely preserve the institution of marriage in name alone.
Noting the Rajasthan High Court’s decision granting divorce to the husband on multiple grounds including cruelty allegedly suffered by him due to the wife’s refusal to maintain sexual relations on several occasions the bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih stated,
“The courts in India have repeatedly established that withholding sexual intimacy inflicts severe emotional distress and undermines the bedrock of marriage,”
It further said,
“Therefore, the conclusion of the high court is sustained. The decree of divorce as granted by allowing the appeal of the respondent-husband is upheld,”
The apex court reiterated that, in line with earlier rulings, persistent refusal to grant conjugal rights specifically the continuing refusal of sexual intercourse without a reasonable cause amounts to mental cruelty and constitutes a legally valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Court also emphasized that both parties married in December 2007 and serving as doctors in government jobs in Gujarat and Rajasthan respectively had not been able to reconcile despite repeated efforts. Invoking its authority under Article 142 to deliver complete justice, the Supreme Court concluded that the relationship had irretrievably broken down and therefore required dissolution.
The judgement, delivered on June 2, was passed on an appeal by the wife challenging a February 2025 order of the High Court. The High Court had allowed the husband’s appeal and granted him divorce.
The Supreme Court noted that the couple had been separated for over 15 years, there were no children from the marriage, and even after sustained judicial attempts, reconciliation had not been achieved.
The bench stressed that marriage cannot be treated merely as a contractual arrangement of individual claims, nor can it be viewed narrowly through the lens of a petition for conjugal rights.
Instead, it said marriage is a personal and social partnership grounded in mutual respect, shared expectations, and equal responsibility, where parties remain interdependent in a continuing manner.
It also clarified that conjugal rights do not exist in isolation; they correspond to conjugal duties. The Court held that seeking enforcement of one without fulfilling the other weakens the foundation of the marriage. In its view, the parties’ conduct demonstrated that even during the limited period of cohabitation, they failed to discharge their conjugal responsibilities.
At the same time, the Court acknowledged the principle that courts should generally strive to preserve marriages and should be cautious about dissolving them at the mere insistence of a party.
However, in this case, given the extensive period of separation and the absence of any meaningful sanctity remaining in the marriage, dissolution was warranted. It rejected the wife’s assertion that she had left her job in Gujarat and started living in Rajasthan, noting that the evidence on record indicated she continued working in Gujarat and that there was no genuine intention to reunite with the husband.
The Court added,
“This court is also of the view that prolonged pendency of matrimonial litigation only leads to perpetuity of marriage on paper.”
Concluding that it would be in the interest of both the parties and society to sever ties after such prolonged litigation, the Supreme Court dismissed the wife’s appeal and dissolved the marriage.