The Supreme Court held that persistent refusal of sexual relations without reasonable cause constitutes mental cruelty and can be a valid ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. Upholding a Rajasthan High Court judgment, the Court dismissed a wife’s appeal challenging the dissolution of marriage.
The Supreme Court has ruled that repeatedly refusing to have sexual relations without a legitimate reason amounts to mental cruelty. It may also be treated as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed an appeal filed by a wife challenging a Rajasthan High Court order that had dissolved her marriage. Both spouses were government doctors.
Background of the case
The couple married in December 2007. After marriage, the wife worked as a gynecologist in Gujarat, while the husband served as a doctor in Rajasthan. No child was born from the marriage.
According to the husband, the wife stayed at the matrimonial home in Bharatpur only for about two to three months during their roughly two-year marital period. He alleged that she repeatedly refused to perform marital obligations and denied him sexual relations on multiple occasions.
In 2009, the husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia), citing cruelty. The Family Court dismissed the plea, finding that cruelty was not established. However, the Rajasthan High Court reversed the decision and granted divorce, leading the wife to approach the Supreme Court.
Observations of the Supreme Court
While evaluating the evidence, the Supreme Court noted the husband’s testimony that the wife used to sleep separately, locked her room from inside, and did not respond even when he knocked. Crucially, the wife did not dispute that the spouses slept in separate rooms.
Drawing on the principles set out in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, the Court reaffirmed that persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without a valid reason constitutes mental cruelty.
The Bench observed:
“Denial of conjugal rights including persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without a reasonable cause constitutes mental cruelty and is a valid ground for divorce.”
ALSO READ: Madhya Pradesh High Court: Divorce Over Wife’s Indecent Chats, Cites Mental Cruelty
The Court reasoned that denying sexual intimacy results in significant emotional suffering and undermines the core foundation of marriage.
The judgment also underlined that marriage is not simply a set of legal entitlements. Instead, it is a relationship founded on mutual respect, companionship, emotional support, fidelity, and shared responsibility and care.
The Bench noted that conjugal rights and conjugal duties are linked, and a spouse cannot enjoy the benefits of marriage while withdrawing from its fundamental obligations. It further held that continued refusal to fulfill essential aspects of married life can have legal consequences when assessing allegations of mental cruelty.
The Court observed that the parties had been living separately for more than 15 years and had spent only a short period together after marriage. Efforts to reconcile including mediation directed by the Supreme Court in 2025 did not succeed.
The Bench remarked that both parties pursued their professional lives in different States and made no meaningful attempt to restore the marriage. The Court concluded that where spouses remain separated for years without any sincere effort at reconciliation, continuing the marriage itself may amount to cruelty.
It also clarified that appellate courts can take into account later developments, including prolonged separation during the course of litigation, when determining whether cruelty exists.
While confirming the finding of cruelty, the Supreme Court also held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The Court noted: the parties had lived apart for over 15 years, there was no realistic possibility of reconciliation, mediation efforts had failed, there were no children involved and both spouses were financially independent government doctors.
Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court stated that continuing the marriage would serve no useful purpose and would only prolong a relationship that survived “only on paper.”
The Bench observed that extended matrimonial litigation often ends up prolonging an emotionally dead marriage, and courts should provide an effective exit when the relationship is beyond repair.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the wife’s appeal, upheld the divorce granted by the Rajasthan High Court, and formally dissolved the marriage. Overall, the ruling reiterates that persistent refusal of sexual relations, long separation, and a complete emotional collapse of the marital relationship taken together can amount to mental cruelty and justify ending the marriage.
Case details: Sonal Talpada v. Veerbhan Singh (2026 INSC 620)
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE