The Supreme Court has upheld a decree of divorce in favour of a husband after finding that prolonged separation, refusal of sexual relations without reasonable cause, and the complete breakdown of marital ties amounted to mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih has observed that  matrimonial relationships involve reciprocal rights and obligations. When spouses continuously fail to perform fundamental marital responsibilities and remain estranged for years without meaningful efforts at reconciliation, the continuation of such a relationship may itself become a source of cruelty to both parties.

The parties, both government-employed doctors, married in December 2007. The wife was serving as a gynaecologist in Gujarat, while the husband was employed in Rajasthan. No child was born from the marriage.

According to the record, the couple cohabited for only two to three months during their matrimonial relationship. Differences soon emerged, and the husband filed a divorce petition in 2009 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging cruelty.

The Family Court at Bharatpur dismissed the divorce petition in 2018, holding that cruelty had not been established. However, the Rajasthan High Court reversed that decision in January 2025 and granted divorce, leading the wife to approach the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the wife consistently maintained that she wanted to continue the marriage and had never abandoned her husband. She argued that it was the husband who prevented her from performing her matrimonial obligations and that allegations of cruelty were unsupported by evidence.

She also contended that the grounds of desertion and irretrievable breakdown of marriage were never pleaded in the original divorce petition and therefore could not be relied upon to dissolve the marriage.

The husband argued that the wife never made genuine efforts to sustain the matrimonial relationship. He pointed out that the parties had been living separately for over fifteen years and had shared marital life for only a brief period.

He further alleged that the wife repeatedly denied him sexual relations and failed to build companionship, trust, and emotional bonding necessary for a successful marriage. According to him, the marriage had become completely unworkable and there was no possibility of reconciliation.

The Court referred extensively to earlier precedents, including Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, where persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without valid reason was recognised as a form of mental cruelty.

While rejecting one of the allegations relied upon by the High Court—namely that the wife insulted the husband during a visit to the Taj Mahal—the Supreme Court found merit in the husband’s grievance regarding denial of conjugal relations.

The Court noted that evidence showed the wife would often sleep separately, lock her room from inside, and deny access to the husband. Importantly, the wife did not dispute that the couple regularly occupied separate rooms during their brief cohabitation period.

The Bench observed that persistent refusal of sexual intimacy strikes at the foundation of marital life and has repeatedly been recognised by Indian courts as constituting mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

A key aspect of the judgment is the Court’s recognition that long-term separation itself can evolve into mental cruelty.

The Bench emphasized that courts are entitled to consider subsequent events occurring during litigation, including prolonged separation and failed attempts at reconciliation, while evaluating whether cruelty exists.

The Supreme Court noted that the parties had been living separately for approximately fifteen years and that mediation efforts ordered by the Court in 2025 had failed.

According to the Court, the spouses had effectively chosen separate professional and personal lives, maintaining distinct residences and having no meaningful marital interaction for over a decade and a half.

The Bench described the situation as a “de facto abandonment of the matrimonial covenant” by both parties.

Relying on its Constitution Bench ruling in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan and other precedents, the Court concluded that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and there was no realistic possibility of reunion.

The Supreme Court also invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice.

The Bench observed that both spouses were financially independent doctors employed in government service and that no children would be adversely affected by dissolution of the marriage.

It remarked that keeping parties tied to a marriage that exists only on paper serves no useful purpose and merely prolongs emotional suffering.

The Court observed that prolonged matrimonial litigation often results in the perpetuation of a dead relationship, creating psychological and emotional distress for both parties.

Case Details

Case Title: Sonal Talpada Versus Veerbhan Singh

Citation: JURISHOUR-1542-SC-2026

Case No.: SLP (C) NO.10422 OF 2025

Date: 02/06/2026

Read More: Allahabad HC Suggests GSTN Introduce Mechanism for Filing Additional Replies Online