Denying sex to spouse for a long time without valid reason is mental cruelty: HC

• Image Credit: Google

• May 25, 2023 | Dhupali Das

Allahabad High Court ruled that denying sex to a spouse for a long period of time without a valid explanation amounts to mental cruelty...

Digital Desk: While hearing an appeal by a man against the dismissal of his divorce petition by a family court, the Allahabad High Court ruled that denying sex to a spouse for a long period of time without a valid explanation amounts to mental cruelty.

The high court stated that it was clear from the record that the parties to the marriage had been living separately for a long time, and the wife had denied discharging the responsibility of marital liability.

The couple married in 1979. After seven years, the wife's gauna ceremony was performed and they started living together as a couple. The petitioner claims that his wife refused to meet her marital obligations and then left for her parents' home.

The husband claimed that he made numerous attempts to convince her. However, the wife didn't start a sexual relationship with the husband. The couple mutually divorced in July 1994 before a panchayat after the man paid Rs 22,000 in alimony to his wife. She later married another man.

The husband then filed for divorce in court, claiming mental cruelty and desertion. However, the trial court refused to issue divorce due to cruelty. Feeling deceived, he filed an appeal with the Allahabad High Court against the family court's decision which dismiss his divorce plea.

Also Read : Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrives in Japan's Hiroshima for the G7 summit

While granting the husband a divorce judgment, the bench of Justices Suneet Kumar and Rajendra Kumar-IV said on Thursday, "Undoubtedly, not allowing a spouse for a long time to have sexual intercourse with his or her partner, without sufficient reason, amounts to mental cruelty. Since there is no acceptable view in which a spouse may be forced to resume life with the consort, striving to keep the parties bound forever to marriage provides nothing."

The bench termed the family court's approach "hyper-technical," saying, "It is evident from the record that the parties to the marriage have been living separately for a long time, according to plaintiff-appellant, defendant-respondent had no respect for a marital bond, denied discharging obligation of marital liability. Their marriage has completely failed."