Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Sonal Talpada – Appellant
Versus
Veerbhan Singh – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 8391 of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP © No. 10422 of 2025]
Decided On : 02-06-2026
(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1) (ia) – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Divorce – Cruelty and desertion by wife – Parties have been living separately for about fifteen years and there is no child from wedlock – Despite repeated efforts by Courts, there has been no reconciliation between parties – Denial of conjugal rights including persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without reasonable cause constitutes mental cruelty and is a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA – Withholding sexual intimacy inflicts severe emotional distress and undermines bedrock of marriage – Conclusion of High Court sustained – Decree of divorce as granted by allowing appeal of Respondent-husband upheld – As regarding ground of desertion, parties have objectively deserted matrimonial framework itself – Intentional maintenance of distinct lifestyles, separate domiciles, and total cessation of marital interaction over fifteen years establishes de facto abandonment of marital covenant by both sides – Marriage between Appellant-wife and Respondent-husband deserves to be dissolved in exercise of powers under Article 142 of Constitution. (Paras 13, 18, 19, 20, 28, 36 and 37)
(B) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1) (ia) – Divorce – Cruelty by spouse – 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 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 continuous balancing of interests – Conjugal rights do not exist in a vacuum; they are structural counterparts to conjugal duties – To demand fulfilment of former while wilfully abandoning sanctity of latter is to undermine very essence of institution – Matrimony is not one-sided right to be enforced, but shared covenant of emotional support, fidelity, responsibility and care, where rights of one are always tied to duties they owe to other – Persistent withdrawal from foundational aspects of marriage may have legal consequences while evaluating allegations of mental cruelty. (Para 22)
Facts of the case:
Instant Appeal assails the judgment and order dated 02.01.2025 (hereinafter referred to as passed by High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur whereby D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5127 of 2019 filed by Respondent-husband (Divorce Petitioner) herein stands allowed by setting aside judgment and decree dated 21.08.2019 passed by Family Court, vide which petition seeking divorce from Appellant-wife filed by Respondent-husband was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
This would be a fit case where relationship of marriage should come to an end for which exercise of powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India would be essential to do complete justice.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - The High Court and Supreme Court discuss dissolution of marriage under Article 142(1) of the Constitution on grounds of irretrievable breakdown and complete justice (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment confirms that denial of conjugal rights and prolonged separation can constitute mental cruelty justifying divorce under Hindu Marriage Act Section 13(1)(ia) (!) (!) . - Prolonged pendency and irretrievable breakdown with no prospect of reconciliation support grant of divorce under Article 142, especially where parties have lived separately for about 15 years or more (!) (!) (!) . - The Court emphasizes balancing factors, including duration of separation, attempts at reconciliation, and the overall conduct of the parties when applying Article 142 to dissolve a marriage (!) (!) . - The appellate court may consider ongoing pendency and the parties’ conduct during litigation to determine mental cruelty or irretrievable breakdown (!) . - The judgment cites Samar Ghosh principles on mental cruelty, including unilateral withholding of conjugal rights as cruelty (!) (!) . - The case involves a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA, with findings of cruelty, desertion, and irretrievable breakdown leading to dissolution (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The outcome: appeal dismissed; decree of divorce granted under Article 142 after finding irretrievable breakdown and cruelty (!) (!) . - No child from wedlock; parties are doctors with independent finances (!) (!) . - Mediation proceedings attempted but unsuccessful; long separation period acknowledged as factor for irretrievable breakdown (!) (!) . - The Court notes that irretrievable breakdown is not a matter of right but a discretionary remedy under Article 142 to do complete justice (!) .
JUDGMENT :
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant Appeal assails the judgment and order dated 02.01.2025 (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) whereby the D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5127 of 2019 filed by the Respondent-husband (Divorce Petitioner) herein stands allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2019 passed by the Family Court at Bharatpur, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as “Family Court”), vide which petition seeking divorce from the Appellant-wife filed by the Respondent-husband was dismissed.
3. Brief facts are that the marriage of the Appellant-wife and the Respondent-husband took place on 05.12.2007 as per the Hindu rites in Nadiyad Khera, Gujarat. No child was born out of their wedlock. At the time of marriage, Appellant-wife was working as a Gynaecologist in a government hospital in Nadiyad Khera, Gujarat and Respondent-husband, also a doctor, in State service in Rajasthan.
4. It appears that there were sociocultural differences between the parties and according to the Respondent-husband, cruelty was meted out to him. Appellant-wife lived with him for hardly two to three months in their matrimonial home at Bharatpur, Rajasthan during their matrimonial period of two years. Leading to the Respondent-husband filing a divorce petition in the year 2009 before the Family Court. The said petition was filed under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “HMA”). The Family Court on 21.08.2018 dismissed the said divorce petition holding therein that the Respondent-husband has failed to prove the cruelty committed by the Appellant-wife against him.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Family Court dismissing the divorce petition, the Respondent-husband preferred an appeal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court allowed the said appeal. Hence, the Appellant-wife is before this Court by way of the present appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-wife submits that she has never abandoned the Respondent-husband and was always ready and willing to lead a matrimonial life with him. Respondent-husband cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. It was further contended that Respondent-husband did not allow Appellant-wife to perform her conjugal duties.
7. The learned counsel further submits that the grounds for desertion and irretrievable breakdown of marriage were not pleaded in the Divorce Petition. In fact, it was Respondent-husband who deserted the Appellant-wife. Appellant-wife had left her government service in Gujarat and started living in Bharatpur to save her matrimonial life. Father of the Respondent-husband had allowed the Appellant-wife to work in Gujarat till construction of Nursing home in Bharatpur. However, construction of said nursing home never commenced and therefore, Appellant-wife continued working in Gujarat. Respondent-husband has failed to produce any evidence to establish that Appellant-wife has committed any cruelty against him. Therefore, present appeal be allowed and decree of Divorce granted by the High Court vide the impugned judgment in favour of Respondent-husband be set aside.
8. Learned counsel for Appellant-wife has heavily relied upon decisions of this Court in Darshan Gupta v. Radhika Gupta, (2013) 9 SCC 1, Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Manju Sharma, (2009) 6 SCC 379 and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511.
9. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel of the Respondent-husband. The learned counsel submits that the Appellant-wife has never made any efforts to save her matrimonial life. The parties are living separately for more than 15 years and have cohabited for merely 2-3 months in the span of 18 years. The Appellant-wife has denied establishment of sexual relations to Respondent-husband o
(1) Divorce – Denial of conjugal rights including persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without reasonable cause constitutes mental cruelty and is a valid ground for divorce.(2) Prolonged pendency....
The recognition of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the need for legislative action to amend the Act to incorporate this ground.
Mental cruelty can lead to irretrievable breakdown of a marriage, and long periods of separation can amount to cruelty under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
(1) Divorce – It would not be desirable to accept formula of “irretrievable break down of marriage” as a strait-jacket formula for grant of relief of divorce under Article 142 of Constitution.(2) Cru....
(1) Divorce – In matrimonial matters involving two individuals, it is not for society or for Court to sit in judgment over which spouses’ approach is correct or not – Long period of separation withou....
The Court held that the long desertion and separation of a spouse would constitute mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, the Court held that it....
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage can justify divorce if one party demonstrates continued unwillingness to reconcile, despite claims of cruelty being unproven.
Prolonged separation and lack of cooperation can indicate irretrievable breakdown of marriage, leading to divorce under Hindu Marriage Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
