The Delhi High Court upheld the divorce granted to a couple whose marriage functionally lasted for only 35 days and collapsed due to non-consummation of marriage, ruling that a spouse’s willful denial of a sexual relationship constitutes cruelty.
In rejecting the wife’s appeal against the divorce decree issued by the family court, a bench presided over by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait noted that the high court had previously ruled that “marriage without sex is anathema” and that “there is nothing (more) fatal to marriage than disappointment in a sexual relationship.”
In this instance, the court noted, the wife’s opposition prevented the marriage from being finalized. She also reported to the police that she had been harassed for dowry, but there was “no cogent evidence” to support her claim. It stated that this could potentially be considered cruelty.
The high court, which also included Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, stated in an order dated September 11 that “wilful denial of sexual relationship by a spouse amounts to cruelty, especially when the parties are newly married, and this alone is a ground for the grant of divorce.”
When referring to the time the lady was living in her marital home, the court stated, “In the present case, not only did the marriage between the parties subsist for barely 35 days, but it failed on account of deprivation of conjugal rights and non-consummation of marriage.”
It is indisputable that such deprivation over more than 18 years constitutes mental cruelty in and of itself.
According to the court’s records, the pair wed in 2004 by Hindu traditions and rituals, and once the wife left for her parents’ house, she never came back.
Later, the spouse filed for divorce in the family court, citing cruelty and desertion as his reasons.
“The belated molestation allegations caused the filing of an FIR and the subsequent trial can greatly be defined as brutal while the complainant changed into attempted,” the statement said, noting that not even a single case of dowry call for became proved.
“In (a case), the Supreme Court laid down numerous acts that may constitute mental cruelty, and one such example turned into the unilateral decision to refuse to have sexual activity for a massive quantity of time without there being any bodily incapacity or legitimate cause,” the court said.
According to the court, the evidence on file showed that the wife did not allow the husband to complete the marriage.
It is indisputable that such deprivation over more than 18 years constitutes mental cruelty in and of itself. According to the court’s records, the pair wed in 2004 by Hindu traditions and rituals, and once the wife left for her parents’ house, she never came back. Later, the spouse filed for divorce in the family court, citing cruelty and desertion as his reasons.
According to the court’s judgment, the family court “rightly concluded” that even though the claim of desertion had not been shown, the wife’s treatment of the husband had been cruel and so qualified him for the divorce decree.
According to the court, “In (a case), the Apex Court laid down various acts that may constitute mental cruelty, and one such illustration was a unilateral decision to refuse to have sexual activity for a sizable period without there being any physical incapacity or legitimate reason,” it added. According to the court, the evidence on file showed that the wife did not allow the husband to complete the marriage.
Team Profile
Latest entries
