The Supreme Court has upheld the dissolution of a marriage between two government doctors who had lived separately for more than 15 years, observing that persistent denial of marital intimacy and a complete breakdown of matrimonial life can amount to mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed an appeal filed by the wife against a Rajasthan High Court judgment that had granted divorce to her husband.
Background of the Case
The parties married on December 5, 2007, according to Hindu rites. Both were doctors employed in government service, with the wife working in Gujarat and the husband serving in Rajasthan. No child was born from the marriage.
According to the husband, the couple lived together for only a brief period of about two to three months. He subsequently approached the Family Court in 2009 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Family Court dismissed the petition, finding that cruelty had not been proved. However, the Rajasthan High Court later reversed that decision and granted a decree of divorce, leading the wife to challenge the ruling before the Supreme Court.
The wife argued that she never abandoned the marriage and remained willing to continue matrimonial life. She contended that the husband could not take advantage of his own conduct and asserted that there was insufficient evidence to establish cruelty.
She also maintained that grounds such as desertion and irretrievable breakdown of marriage were not originally pleaded in the divorce petition.
While examining the record, the Supreme Court noted that the parties had remained separated for around 15 years and that mediation efforts had failed.
The Bench observed that evidence showed the wife often slept separately and locked her room from inside, resulting in the husband sleeping in another room. The Court found that this aspect of the evidence remained substantially uncontroverted.
Referring to earlier precedents, the Court reiterated that persistent refusal of sexual relations without reasonable justification can constitute mental cruelty.
“The courts in India have repeatedly established that withholding sexual intimacy inflicts severe emotional distress and undermines the bedrock of marriage,” the Bench observed while affirming the High Court's findings.
The Court emphasized that marriage cannot be viewed merely as a collection of individual rights. It described matrimony as a partnership built on mutual respect, companionship, responsibility, and emotional support.
The Bench observed that conjugal rights and conjugal duties are interconnected and that a prolonged withdrawal from the fundamental aspects of marital life may have legal consequences when allegations of mental cruelty are examined.
The Supreme Court also considered the fact that the parties had been living apart for over a decade and a half without meaningful efforts at reconciliation.
According to the Court, where spouses continue to live separately for many years and all attempts at reunion fail, compelling them to resume cohabitation may itself amount to cruelty.
The Bench stated,
“Where parties have been living separately for several years and at this stage asking them to live together after a prolonged duration would amount to cruelty to both the parties.”
Apart from the statutory ground of cruelty, the Court found that the marriage had broken down beyond repair.
The judges noted that the parties had built separate lives, remained estranged for over 15 years, and failed to reconcile despite court-directed mediation. Given these circumstances, the Court concluded that there was no realistic possibility of the marriage being restored.
Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, the Supreme Court held that the marriage had become unworkable and emotionally dead.
The Court upheld the divorce granted by the Rajasthan High Court and formally dissolved the marriage. Consequently, the wife's appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sonal Talpada v. Veerbhan Singh
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10422 of 2025
Judges: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Decision Date: June 2, 2026
