Refusing Sex Without Any Valid Reason Amounts To Cruelty: Orissa HC Grants Divorce To A Husband
The Orissa High Court observed that the act of refusing intercourse without physical incapacity or valid reason, based on a unilateral decision, constitutes mental cruelty.
The Court allowed an appeal challenging the order of the Family Court that dismissed the Husband’s application for dissolution of the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act).
The Bench comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed, “we understand that refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without any physical incapacity or valid reason, on unilateral decision, may amount to mental cruelty”.
Advocate Lalitendu Mishra appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Sujata Jena appeared for the Respondent.
The Appellant-husband filed an Appeal before the High Court challenging a judgment of the family court. The Appellant contended that the civil proceeding for dissolution of the marriage was dismissed, despite the counterclaim of the Respondent-wife for restitution of conjugal rights also being dismissed.
The Court emphasized that a refusal to engage in intercourse for a significant duration, without valid reasons or physical incapacity, can be considered mental cruelty. The Court noted the need to establish whether the Respondent-wife unilaterally decided to abstain from intercourse for an extended period without any physical incapacity or valid justification.
The Court, upon reviewing the exhibits, observed that the Appellant consistently sought intimacy but emphasised that these messages only express the desire for physical closeness and do not serve as proof of actual physical intimacy. The Court observed a contradiction in the pleadings, with the appellant asserting non-consummation and denial of physical intimacy, while the respondent-wife insists on consummation and subsequent intimacy initiated by the appellant.
However, the Court also noted discrepancies in Respondet-Wife's deposition, where she initially claims there was no need for consultations. The Bench also noted the importance of the parties' depositions in the absence of third-party witnesses and underscored that an admission in cross-examination cannot be explained away by argument.
The Court noted the respondent-wife's clear admission of non-consummation leads to the unavoidable conclusion that there was no physical intimacy.
The Bench noted that there was no physical intimacy between the parties. The appellant's waiting for consummation was deemed reasonable, and the private messages presented demonstrate his eagerness, supporting his contention of mental cruelty.
The Court observed that the Respondent-wife's omission to bring forth evidence of physical incapacity or a valid reason for denying physical intimacy leads to the conclusion that it was her unilateral decision to deny her husband.
In light of these findings, the Court disagreed with the lower court's conclusion regarding the consummation of the marriage or physical intimacy. The Court criticized the interpretation that some contact must have occurred, as it overlooks the Respondent's clear admissions about her awareness of consultations regarding non-consummation and the absence of physical contact.
The Court noted that the plea solely focuses on grounds of mental cruelty. The Court's analysis of relevant pleadings and evidence led to the finding that the Appellant-husband has established the ground under clause (i-a) under section 13(1) of the Act.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned order and granted a divorce decree.
Cause Title: X vs Y
