The Rajasthan High Court has held that a wife's unilateral refusal to permit the establishment of physical relations without any physical incapacity or valid reason, alongside issuing threats of suicide, squarely falls within the ambit of "mental cruelty" under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Court affirmed that such persistent denial of cohabitation for an extended period severely damages the foundation of marriage, providing the aggrieved spouse a legitimate and valid legal ground to seek a decree of divorce.

The Division Bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit observed, "In the present case, in accordance with paragraph 101(xii) of the aforesaid Samar Ghosh case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellant has refused to have physical relations unilaterally for a considerably long period without “physical incapacity” or a valid reason, which falls within the definition of “mental cruelty” and, in accordance with the aforesaid Sonal Talpada case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also, the absence of physical relations from 25-10-2018 and the appellant's refusal to permit establishment of physical relations falls within the category of mental cruelty and giving threats of suicide also falls within the category of mental cruelty which is a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act."


Advocate Harshil Vyas appeared for the Appellant/Wife, while Advocate Veer Bajrang Singh appeared for the Respondent/Husband

Appeals were filed by the Appellant/Wife, aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Family Court, challenging the decree of divorce passed in favour of the Respondent/Husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and against the dismissal of the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act preferred by the Appellant/Wife.

The Husband filed an application under Section 13 of the Act seeking a decree of divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and desertion. He alleged that when he visited and stayed with the Wife at Jaisalmer, her behaviour altered significantly due to a superiority complex over her job. He pleaded that the Wife taunted him for being a kulfi seller, failed to provide meals on time, refused cohabitation and the establishment of physical relations since 25-10-2018, threatened to commit suicide by consuming poison, and voluntarily deserted him for over two years.

Conversely, the Wife filed a reply resisting the divorce petition and instituted a separate application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. She contended that the respondent subjected her to financial exploitation by demanding money from her salary, quarrelled over petty matters, and repeatedly threatened her over the phone to either resign from her job or hand over half of her salary. She further asserted that the Husband withdrew from her society without any reasonable cause and refused to discharge his matrimonial obligations, while maintaining that she remained ready and willing to reside with him as his wife.

The Court noted that it is proved from the evidence that the appellant-wife threatened the respondent-applicant husband with suicide. It was also noted that there was no physical incapacity between the appellant and the respondent, and in such a situation, without any valid reason, there have been no physical relations between the appellant and the respondent since 2018, and the fact that the appellant did not give her consent for the same is also clear from the pleadings and evidence.

The Court observed, "From the discussion made above, it is clear that the decree of divorce granted by the learned trial court under Section 13(1) (ia) on the ground of cruelty is based upon evidence and law. Interference in this decree does not appear to be permissible in law."

Regarding Section 9, the Court said that once it was decided that the appeal preferred against the decree of divorce is liable to be dismissed, in such circumstances, consideration of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is also not permissible in law. 

Accordingly, the Court dismissed both the appeals. 

Cause Title: W v. H [Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:48351-DB]

Appearances:

Appellant: Advocate Harshil Vyas

Respondent: Advocates Veer Bajrang Singh and JVS Deora

Click here to read/download the Order

Tags: