The has officially upheld a granted to a husband, ruling that a wife's persistent and prolonged refusal to engage in physical relations, in the absence of any physical incapacity, qualifies as under . The division bench, presided over by Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit, dismissed two separate appeals filed by the wife, Smt. Lakshmi Choudhary, who had challenged both the trial court’s decision to dissolve the marriage and the rejection of her petition for the .
The ruling reaffirms the legal standard that a unilateral, indefinite withdrawal from the physical obligations of marriage, when devoid of medical justification or valid reason, causes deep-seated emotional distress and fundamentally undermines the marital bond. By dismissing the appellant's challenge, the court has effectively solidified the lower court’s determination that the marriage, which had remained largely symbolic since , had become an irreparable fiction.
The dispute originated from a marriage solemnized on . According to the facts established during the proceedings, the husband, Gajendra Choudhary, a businessman based in Balotra, and the appellant, a junior accountant at the , faced immediate marital challenges following the wedding. While the parties lived together for a brief period of 10 days in Balotra, the wife returned to Jaisalmer for her professional responsibilities. When the husband attempted to reside with her in Jaisalmer for a subsequent period, he alleged that the relationship deteriorated significantly due to the wife’s conduct, which he characterized as cruel and exclusionary.
The husband’s petition detailed that, beyond a general atmosphere of conflict and verbal abuse, the wife denied him physical intimacy after . Furthermore, he alleged that she engaged in threatening behavior, specifically warning him that she would commit suicide to resolve their grievances. These allegations were substantiated by the court's review of a suicide note, marked as Exhibit-1, which was presented as evidence of the high level of psychological strain imposed upon the husband. In her defense, the wife alleged that the husband’s actions were motivated by financial greed and that he had subjected her to unwarranted pressure to surrender a portion of her salary. However, the trial court found her claims insufficient to outweigh the evidence of her prolonged refusal of marital duties.
In its assessment, the division bench relied heavily on established judicial precedents concerning the definition of . The court highlighted the landmark observations in , noting that is a state of mind that cannot be reduced to a single formula but includes sustained conduct that renders an otherwise tolerable life miserable. The bench explicitly cited paragraph 101 of the Samar Ghosh judgment: “Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to .”
Furthermore, the High Court integrated the findings of the 2026 Supreme Court ruling in , reinforcing the principle that the denial of conjugal rights strikes at the heart of the marital relationship. The bench observed that the evidence presented—specifically the lack of physical relations for nearly two years and the documented threats of self-harm—painted a clear picture of an . The judges noted: “Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie.”
During the cross-examination, the appellant acknowledged that no physical incapacity existed on her part or the part of her husband, nor had any medical testing been conducted to support such a claim. Her testimony further revealed that she had no intention of relocating from Jaisalmer to join her husband in Balotra, a stance that effectively signaled a permanent departure from the domestic life expected within the matrimonial unit. This admission, coupled with the absence of any proactive step taken by the wife to address the alleged suicide threats before official authorities, led the court to conclude that her behavior fell squarely within the definition of .
The court’s decision to dismiss the application for the under was a logical corollary to the dissolution of the marriage. Once the court reached the determination that the grounds for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) had been sufficiently proven, the viability of a petition for the restoration of marital life was effectively extinguished. The bench maintained that it would be legally incongruous to order the resumption of a marriage that had already been declared legally dissolved due to the actions of the party seeking reconciliation.
Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment passed by the , on . The dismissal of both appeals brings a formal end to the between the parties, effectively nullifying the legal union that had existed only in name since 2018. The order underscores the High Court’s commitment to interpreting the Hindu Marriage Act in a manner that recognizes the psychological realities of modern domestic life, prioritizing the sanctity of marriage while providing a pathway to dissolution when the fundamental obligations of the relationship are consistently and unilaterally denied. The decision serves as a definitive ruling on the legal weight given to the sustained denial of physical intimacy in .
matrimonial discord - conjugal rights
