Denying Sex To Spouse For Long Time A Form Of Mental Cruelty: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court dissolved a marriage last week as it noted that denying sex to a spouse for a long time without sufficient reason amounts to mental cruelty.

The court, while hearing an appeal by a man against the dismissal of his divorce petition by a family court, came to this observation, Live Law reported.

Twitter

The high court stated that it was clear from the record that, for a long period, the partakers of the marriage had been residing separately, and the wife had declined to terminate the commitment of marital liability.

What ensued between the couple

While the couple tied the knot in 1979, the wife's Gauna ceremony was performed seven years later, and after that, they started living together.

The husband stated that his wife declined to fulfil her obligation of marital life and left for her parents' home. He claimed that he tried to convince several times, but the woman did not establish any physical relationship with him.

Unsplash/Representational Image

Subsequently, in 1994, the couple separated mutually before a panchayat after the man settled alimony of Rs 22,000 to his wife. She later married another man.

Following this, the husband approached a court pursuing divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and desertion. But the trial court denied him divorce on the grounds of cruelty.

Family court's approach 'hyper-technical'

Feeling disappointed, he appealed to the Allahabad High Court against the family court order, which disregarded his divorce plea.

A bench of Justices Suneet Kumar and Rajendra Kumar-IV, while giving the husband a decree of divorce, on Thursday said, "Undoubtedly, not allowing a spouse for a long time to have sexual intercourse with his or her partner, without sufficient reason, itself amounts to mental cruelty. Since there is no acceptable view in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is given by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage."

Representational Image

Calling the course taken by the family court "hyper-technical", the bench said, "It is evident from the record that since long, the parties to the marriage have been living separately, according to plaintiff-appellant, defendant-respondent had no respect for marital bond, denied discharging obligation of marital liability. There has been a complete breakdown of their marriage."

For more on news, sports and current affairs from around the world, please visit Indiatimes News.