Prolonged Marital Separation Can Constitute 'Mental Cruelty'; Dead Relationship Need Not Be Sustained :Supreme Court

“In such circumstances, desertion ceases to be merely a matter of individual malice or unilateral fault rather it assumes the character of a shared, de facto abandonment of the matrimonial covenant. The parties have objectively deserted the matrimonial framework itself. The intentional maintenance of distinct lifestyles, separate domiciles, and the total cessation of marital interaction over fifteen years establishes a de facto abandonment of the marital covenant by both sides”, said the Court..

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih further held that even though desertion had not been specifically pleaded, matrimonial disputes cannot always be confined to rigid legal labels. It observed that appellate courts are entitled to consider the overall conduct of parties and events occurring during the pendency of litigation.

“An Appellate Court, while carefully ensuring that a party does not profit from their own manifest wrong or unilateral desertion, may legitimately treat a prolonged period of separation as an indicator of mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA. The Appellate Court is not precluded from examining whether continuous separation over a substantial period, coupled with absence of any genuine effort at reconciliation, complete cessation of cohabitation and emotional alienation has resulted in mental cruelty. Subsequent events occurring during pendency of proceedings may legitimately be taken into consideration while undertaking such assessment”, the Court observed.

The husband filed a divorce petition in 2009 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging cruelty. The Family Court dismissed the petition. However, the Rajasthan High Court reversed that decision and granted divorce. The wife challenged that judgment before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court noted that throughout the litigation, including before the Supreme Court, the wife consistently opposed divorce and expressed a desire to continue the marriage. It also noted that no civil or criminal proceedings had been initiated by either spouse against the other. However, the parties had remained separated for about 15 years and mediation ordered by the Supreme Court in May 2025 had failed.

The Court observed that marriage cannot be reduced to a contractual intersection of individual rights or viewed only through the lens of conjugal rights. It described matrimony as a personal and social partnership founded on mutual respect, shared expectations and equal responsibility.

The Court observed that conjugal rights do not exist in isolation and are linked to corresponding duties. Persistent withdrawal from the foundational aspects of marriage, the Court said, may have legal consequences while assessing allegations of mental cruelty.

The Court held that prolonged separation, absence of efforts at reconciliation, cessation of cohabitation and emotional alienation can amount to mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia).

The Court added, “In such circumstances, the confirmation of a decree of divorce by an Appellate Court is not an invocation of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, but a lawful and realistic application of the statutory ground of cruelty to the facts of the case.”

The Court said that where parties have lived apart for several years, compelling them to resume cohabitation may itself amount to cruelty to both spouses. It added that once the statutory period for desertion is satisfied, continued separation during litigation can aggravate the situation and may be taken into account by appellate courts while deciding divorce disputes.

“This we say in the light of the fact that human relations are dynamic and once the initial mandate under the statute stands satisfied, continuation thereof during the litigation would aggravate the said agony which could be confirmational in substantiating the basis and pleaded ground for divorce. The same can be taken into consideration for formation of an opinion to accept the prayer by the Appellate Court”, the Court observed.

The Supreme Court upheld the finding of cruelty on another ground. Referring to the husband's evidence, it observed that during the brief period of cohabitation, the wife used to sleep early, lock her room from inside and not open the door despite knocking, resulting in the husband sleeping in a separate room. The Court noted that the wife had not denied that they slept in separate rooms.

The Court also reiterated that denial of conjugal rights, including persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without reasonable cause, constitutes mental cruelty and is a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia).

“As held in the case of Samar Ghosh (supra) and other catena of judgments by this Court, denial of conjugal rights including persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without a reasonable cause constitutes mental cruelty and is a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA. The courts in India have repeatedly established that withholding sexual intimacy inflicts severe emotional distress and undermines the bedrock of marriage. Therefore, the conclusion of the High Court is sustained. The decree of divorce as granted by allowing the appeal of the Respondent-husband is upheld”, the Court said.

Apart from upholding the finding of cruelty, the Court held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and reiterated that its powers under Article 142 to dissolve a marriage where it has become completely unworkable and beyond repair.

The Court noted that there were no children from the marriage and both parties were financially independent doctors in government service.

The Court also remarked that prolonged matrimonial litigation often results in a marriage surviving only on paper. It stated that in cases where litigation has continued for a considerable period and the relationship has become stale and frozen, it may be in the interests of both parties and society to sever the legal ties rather than prolong the dispute indefinitely.

“Prolongation of a matrimonial relationship would further lead not only to escalation of frustration in a dead relationship, which has already decayed and is decomposing day by day creating foul sociological, psychological and mental hollowness in life resulting in denial of a free and independent environment to flourish which each human strives in body and soul”, the Court observed.

Holding that the case was fit for exercise of powers under Article 142 to do complete justice, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage and dismissed the wife's appeal.

Headnote

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia) – Mental Cruelty – Denial of Conjugal Rights & Persistent Refusal of Sexual Intercourse - Denial of conjugal rights, including the persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without a reasonable cause, constitutes mental cruelty and serves as a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Withholding sexual intimacy inflicts severe emotional distress and fundamentally undermines the bedrock of marriage. [Para 19]

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia) – Mental Cruelty – Long Separation & Rigid Approaches - Where a couple has lived separately for a substantial duration (over 15 years in this case) with no hope for reconciliation, forcing them to live together after such a prolonged period itself constitutes cruelty to both sides - In matrimonial matters involving two individuals, it is not for the society or the Court to sit in judgment over which spouse's approach is correct - their strongly held, unaccommodating views and persistent refusal to adjust over a long span of time amount to mutual cruelty. [Paras 23, 24, 25]

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia) & Section 13(1)(ib) – Desertion – Evolution into Mental Cruelty & Conduct During Pendency of Litigation - Even if the statutory ground of 'desertion' under Section 13(1)(ib) has not been formally pleaded, an Appellate Court is justified in examining the overall conduct of the parties and the manner in which they discharged matrimonial obligations - Appeal is a continuation of the suit - If a statutory period of desertion continues indefinitely during the pendency of litigation without any genuine effort at reconciliation or cohabitation, it aggravates marital agony - An Appellate Court can legitimately treat such prolonged physical separation, geographical estrangement, and complete emotional alienation as a realistic indicator of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA - In such instances, the confirmation of a divorce decree by the Appellate Court is a lawful application of the statutory ground of cruelty, not an automatic invocation of Article 142. [Paras 21 – 27]

Constitution of India – Article 142(1) – Dissolution of Marriage on Irretrievable Breakdown - The Supreme Court possesses the inherent, discretionary jurisdiction under Article 142(1) to dissolve a marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown to do "complete justice," even if the facts do not strictly satisfy a statutory ground under the prevailing personal law - This power is exercised with great care and caution when the Court is fully convinced that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvation, and that the continuation of a formal legal tie on paper is unjustified and merely perpetuates frustration - Given that the parties were living separately for over 15 years, mediation had failed, and both were financially independent doctors with no children from the wedlock, it was deemed a fit case to sever the ties and put an end to a stale, frozen relationship. [Relied on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511; Nayan Bhowmick v. Aparna Chakraborty, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2798; Vikas Kanaujia v. Sarita, (2025) 3 SCC 748; Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) 14 SCC 231; R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha, (2019) 9 SCC 409; Paras 29-37]

Appearance -

For Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR Mrs. Kshama Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritwik Prasad, Adv. Mr. Rajat Singh Chandel, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Ashutosh, Adv. Ms. Avi Sahai, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Maurya, Adv.

For Respondent: Mr. Mithilesh Jha, AOR Ms. Rishika Chahar, Adv. Ms. Sanskriti Mishra, Adv. Mr. Tarun Chauhan, Adv.

Case no. – SLP (C) No. 10422 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 594