The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed two appeals challenging a divorce decree and the rejection of a petition seeking restoration of marital rights, holding that prolonged refusal to establish physical relations without a valid reason can amount to mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A Division Bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit upheld the Family Court's decision, relying on the evidence concerning the parties' prolonged separation and the absence of physical relations since October 2018.
Background
The dispute arose from a marriage solemnised on October 11, 2018. The husband sought divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty and desertion. He claimed that the parties had lived together for only a brief period and had not maintained physical relations after October 25, 2018.
The wife disputed the allegations and sought restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9, which allows a spouse to request the court's intervention when the other spouse has withdrawn from their company without reasonable excuse.
On February 20, 2024, the Family Court at Jaisalmer granted a divorce on the ground of cruelty and dismissed the wife's petition. She subsequently challenged both findings before the High Court.
The High Court examined the evidence recorded by the Family Court, including the parties' statements and a letter concerning an alleged threat of suicide. It noted that the wife had not established that physical relations continued after October 25, 2018, or that there was a valid reason for their prolonged absence.
The Bench referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, which explains that sustained conduct causing serious mental suffering may constitute mental cruelty. It also considered the Supreme Court's 2026 ruling in Sonal Talpada v. Veerbhan Singh.
The Court observed that the evidence established prolonged denial of physical relations without physical incapacity or a valid reason. It also considered the alleged suicide threats while assessing the overall circumstances.
Referring to the applicable legal principles, the Bench noted that
“Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.”
The Court further held that the evidence in the present case supported the finding of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.
The High Court found no legal basis to interfere with the Family Court's divorce decree, concluding that its findings were supported by the evidence and applicable law.
Since the challenge to the divorce decree failed, the Court also held that the appeal concerning restitution of conjugal rights could not succeed.
Accordingly, the Division Bench dismissed both appeals and disposed of any pending stay applications.
