Persistent Refusal of Conjugal Relations and Long Separation Amount to Mental Cruelty: Supreme Court
Case Name: Sonal Talpada v. Veerbhan Singh
Citation: 2026 INSC 620
Date of Judgment/Order: 02 June 2026
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J. and Augustine George Masih, J.
Held: The Supreme Court held that persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without reasonable cause constitutes mental cruelty and is a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court further held that prolonged separation, complete cessation of cohabitation, absence of genuine efforts at reconciliation, and emotional alienation may legitimately be considered as indicators of mental cruelty by an appellate court, even where desertion is not formally pleaded as a separate statutory ground. The Court also reiterated that, in an appropriate case, it may dissolve a marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution where the marriage has become totally unworkable, emotionally dead and irretrievably broken down.
Summary: The parties, both doctors, were married on 05.12.2007 but lived together only for about two to three months and had no child from the wedlock. The husband filed a divorce petition in 2009 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging cruelty. The Family Court dismissed the petition, holding that cruelty was not proved, but the Rajasthan High Court reversed that decision and granted divorce. Before the Supreme Court, the wife contended that she had never abandoned the husband, was always willing to continue the marriage, and that desertion and irretrievable breakdown had not been pleaded. The husband argued that the parties had lived separately for over 15 years, had cohabited only briefly, and that the wife’s refusal of sexual relations and failure to build marital companionship amounted to cruelty. The Supreme Court, relying on Samar Ghosh, Shilpa Sailesh, Vikas Kanaujia and other precedents, held that denial of conjugal relations, prolonged separation and the collapse of mutual obligations had destroyed the matrimonial bond. The Court observed that marriage is not merely a bundle of rights but a shared covenant of emotional support, fidelity, responsibility and care.
Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the wife’s appeal and upheld the decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband. The Court sustained the finding of mental cruelty on account of persistent refusal of conjugal relations and held that the parties’ long separation of more than 15 years, failed mediation, absence of children, independent professional lives and lack of any real possibility of reunion made the marriage irretrievably broken. Exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court dissolved the marriage to do complete justice between the parties. There was no order as to costs, and all pending applications were disposed of.