Sonal Talpada vs Veerbhan Singh

Held: Decree of divorce as granted by High Court is upheld – Denial of conjugal rights including persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without a reasonable cause constitutes mental cruelty and is a valid ground for divorce u/s.13(1)(ia) – Withholding sexual intimacy inflicts severe emotional distress and undermines the bedrock of marriage – Appellant has not denied the fact that they used to sleep in different rooms – Thus, the acceptance of the ground of cruelty for grant of divorce is correct – Moreover, even during the short period of cohabitation parties failed to perform their conjugal responsibilities – They have strongly held views with regard to the approach towards matrimonial life and refused to accommodate each other for a long period of time – In situations where parties have been living separately for a considerable time without any hope for reconciliation amounts to cruelty to both the parties – Parties had a prolonged physical separation spanning more than a decade and a half – Although the Appellant contended that she had left her job in Gujarat and started residing in Bharatpur, Rajasthan in their matrimonial home but there is no evidence to substantiate the same – Rather the evidence is to the contrary and it is not disputed that she still continues with her job in Gujarat – Further, while the statutory ground of ‘desertion’ u/s.13(1)(ib) was not formally pleaded by the Respondent however, the element of desertion can be viewed neutrally through an objective lens where spouses choose independent professional and geographical paths and remain completely estranged without any reciprocal effort to bridge the distance – 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 – 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 – Marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent has broken down irretrievably and is dissolved in exercise of powers u/Art.142 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 18, 19, 22, 24, 27, 28, 30, 34] Constitution of India – Art.142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Exercise of inherent powers u/Art.142, for dissolution of a marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown, though the facts of the case do not provide a ground in law on which the divorce could be granted – It is in the best interest of parties and the society if ties are severed between parties in cases where litigation has been pending for a considerably long period of time:

Held: This Court has exercised its inherent powers u/Art.142 for dissolution of a marriage where it finds that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and has broken down irretrievably, even if the facts of the case do not provide a ground in law on which the divorce could be granted – In the present case, admittedly, the Appellant-wife and the Respondenthusband have been living separately for more than 15 years, all efforts to reconcile them have failed and therefore, it will not be possible for the parties to live together – Therefore, this is a fit case to exercise the powers u/Art.142 and to dissolve the marriage between the parties – Though, the approach of the Courts should be to preserve the sanctity of marriage and the Court should be reluctant to dissolve the marriage at the mere asking of one of the parties but, in the present case, the parties have lived separately for far too long a period of time and there is no sanctity left in the marriage – Although, the Appellant contended that she had left her job in Gujarat and started residing in Bharatpur, Rajasthan in their matrimonial home but there is no evidence to substantiate the same – Rather the evidence on record is to the contrary and it is not disputed that she still continues with her job in Gujarat – There appears to be no intention on her part to join company of the husband – Grant of divorce in the present proceedings would not have a devastating effect on any third party, as there are no children from the wedlock – Moreover, prolonged pendency of matrimonial litigation only leads to perpetuity of marriage on paper – It is in the best interest of parties and the society if ties are severed between parties in cases where litigation has been pending for a considerably long period of time. [Paras 34-36, 38] Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Mental cruelty, allegations of – Withdrawal from the foundational aspects of marriage have legal consequences while evaluating allegations of mental cruelty: Held: Marriage, in its legal and constitutional dimension, can never be reduced to a mere contractual intersection of individual rights, nor can it be viewed strictly through the narrow lens of a petition for conjugal rights – It is a deeply personal and social partnership built on mutual respect, shared expectations and equal responsibility – When two parties enter into matrimony, they weave a tapestry of interdependence that demands a continuous balancing of interests – Conjugal rights do not exist in a vacuum; they are the structural counterparts to conjugal duties – To demand the fulfilment of the former while wilfully abandoning the sanctity of the latter is to undermine the very essence of the institution – Therefore, matrimony is not a one-sided right to be enforced, but a shared covenant of emotional support, fidelity, responsibility and care, where the rights of one are always tied to the duties they owe to the other – Persistent withdrawal from the foundational aspects of marriage may have legal consequences while evaluating allegations of mental cruelty. [Para 22]

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – ss.13(1)(ia), 13(1)(ib) – ‘cruelty’; ‘desertion’ – Appellate Court entitled to consider the conduct of the parties during the pendency of litigation – Family Court dismissed the divorce petition filed by the Respondenthusband holding that he failed to prove the cruelty committed by the Appellant-wife against him – High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent, granting divorce in his favour holding that cruelty was committed by the Appellant against the Respondent as she denied sexual relations on several occasions; desertion due to long absence from matrimonial home; and parties were living separately since 15 years: Held: High Court rightly assessed that where parties have been living separately for several years and at this stage asking them to live together after a prolonged duration would amount to cruelty to both the parties and divorce can be granted on this ground as provided u/s.13 (1)(ia) – Further, though, desertion as a ground requires an initial period as mentioned under the statute but if such desertion continues for a long period of time without any effort on the part of the parties to restore cohabitation would itself be a ground to be considered by the Appellate Court – 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 – Appeal is the continuation of a suit and therefore, the Appellate Court would be entitled and justified to consider the conduct of the parties during the pendency of litigation – The same can also be looked into to support or reject an opinion on the ground in question – 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 s.13(1)(ia) – 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 – In such circumstances, the confirmation of a decree of divorce by an Appellate Court is not an invocation of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction u/Art.142, but a lawful and realistic application of the statutory ground of cruelty to the facts of the case. [Paras 25, 26]