Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh): Allowing divorce of a couple from Varanasi for indulging in sexual indifference, the Allahabad High Court on Thursday observed that denying sex with the spouse for a long time without any basis amounts to mental cruelty. A division bench of Justice Sunit Kumar and Justice Rajendra Kumar gave the order while accepting the appeal of one Ravindra Pratap Yadav, a resident of Varanasi, for divorce.
The divorce application of Ravindra Pratap Yadav was rejected by the Varanasi Family Court. Unsatisfied with the decision, Yadav decided to challenge the ruling in the High Court. In his appeal, Yadav claimed that his marital problems began shortly after his marriage in 1979, when his wife's behaviour and conduct changed dramatically. She started refusing to fulfil her duties as a wife and distanced herself from him, despite them living under the same roof.
Yadav repeatedly pleaded with his wife to reconcile and restore their mutual relationship, but his efforts were in vain. Their marriage continued to suffer as his wife persisted in maintaining her physical and emotional distance. Matters took a turn for the worse when his wife eventually decided to leave their home and return to her maternal home. This separation further exacerbated the strain on their already troubled relationship.
According to Yadav, approximately six months into their marriage, he made another attempt to convince his wife to return to their matrimonial home and fulfil her responsibilities as a married woman. He implored her to honour their marriage and respect their commitment to each other. Unfortunately, his pleas fell on deaf ears, as his wife adamantly refused to come back.
Also read: Baramulla youth 'illegally' detained under PSA for over a year; J&K High Court summons DC
In 1994, after years of unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation, both parties agreed to pursue a mutual divorce during a Panchayat held in their village. As part of the agreement, Yadav agreed to pay a permanent alimony of Rs 22,000 to his wife. Following their divorce, the wife went on to remarry, while Yadav sought legal dissolution of their marriage, citing mental cruelty and prolonged desertion as the grounds for divorce.
Despite Yadav's efforts to initiate divorce proceedings and serve his wife the necessary legal notice, she failed to appear in court. Her absence only added to the complexity of the case, leaving the court with limited information to base its judgment on. Consequently, the Varanasi Family Court rejected Yadav's divorce application, prompting him to escalate the matter to the High Court, hoping for a favourable outcome.
The bench while allowing divorce said, "Not allowing a spouse for a long time to have sexual intercourse with his or her partner without any sufficient reason, itself amounts to mental cruelty. Since there is no acceptable view in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is given by tying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage."
