Spousal Denial of Intimacy Deemed Grounds for Divorce by Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently declared that a wife’s refusal to engage in marital relations with her husband constitutes cruelty and is considered a legitimate reason for divorce.

The Justices Sheel Nagu and Vinay Saraf, presiding over the case, addressed an appeal contesting the Trial Court’s decision that dismissed the husband’s petition for a divorce decree. The case involved the respondent (wife) refusing cohabitation with the appellant (husband), leading to a lack of consummation in the marriage.

According to the petitioner, the respondent allegedly issued suicide threats via email and filed a baseless case under Section 498-A/406 of the IPC against the petitioner and his parents.

Summons of the petition were served to the respondent by the trial court, but the respondent did not appear. Consequently, the trial court proceeded ex parte, rendering the impugned judgment. The judgment dismissed the appellant’s application, citing the appellant’s failure to substantiate any grounds under the Act of 1955 for the grant of a divorce decree.

The bench stated that the allegation of the appellant that “non-consummation of marriage and denial of physical intimacy amounts to mental cruelty,” remained unrebutted as the respondent did not appear before the trial court and did not file any reply to the petition filed by the appellant. The appellant narrated the factum of mental cruelty on account of non-consummation of marriage in his affidavit of chief-examination filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC and the same could not be controverted in the absence of the respondent.

The High Court expressed the view that the husband’s claim of mental cruelty, arising from the wife’s refusal of physical intimacy, was substantiated. The court emphasized that the trial court should have taken this into account while delivering the contested judgment.

The bench looked into the case of Sukhendu Das v. Rita Mukherjee where the Apex Court held that “non-appearance of the respondent-wife in the case filed by the appellant/husband for divorce itself amounts to cruelty.”

The High Court dismissed the Trial Court’s determination that the wife’s failure to consummate the marriage is not a valid basis for divorce.

Further, the bench referred to the case of Samer Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh where it was held that failure on the part of the wife to consummate the marriage is mental cruelty and a ground for divorce.

High Court opined that it was already decided by the appellant that he would leave India in a short period. During this period, the appellant was hopeful to consummate the marriage but the same was denied by the respondent and certainly, the said act of the respondent amounts to mental cruelty. The ground of divorce enumerated in Clause (i-a) under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is made out.