In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a husband seeking divorce from his wife on the grounds of cruelty due to her alleged refusal of sexual intercourse.

The Court found the husband's claims of mental cruelty to be unsubstantiated, concluding that the relationship did not meet the necessary criteria for dissolution based on these allegations.

The couple, married in 1999, both medical doctors, had two children. The husband established his practice in Delhi, while the wife worked with the Indian Railways before opting for voluntary retirement. Nine years into their marriage, the husband filed for divorce, accusing his wife of denying sexual relations, allegedly under the influence of a religious teacher. However, he was unable to provide specific evidence of a consistent or total deprivation of intimacy, which the Court deemed essential to validate his claim of cruelty.

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a husband seeking divorce from his wife on the grounds of cruelty due to her alleged refusal of sexual intercourse.

The Court found the husband's claims of mental cruelty to be unsubstantiated, concluding that the relationship did not meet the necessary criteria for dissolution based on these allegations.

The couple, married in 1999, both medical doctors, had two children. The husband established his practice in Delhi, while the wife worked with the Indian Railways before opting for voluntary retirement. Nine years into their marriage, the husband filed for divorce, accusing his wife of denying sexual relations, allegedly under the influence of a religious teacher. However, he was unable to provide specific evidence of a consistent or total deprivation of intimacy, which the Court deemed essential to validate his claim of cruelty.

The Court emphasized that occasional issues related to intimacy between spouses fall within the private sphere and do not automatically warrant legal intervention. It further stated that a claim of cruelty based on sexual denial would require evidence of a prolonged and consistent refusal, which was lacking in this case.

The division bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh said, "To seek dissolution of marriage on ground of denial of sexual intercourse, such fact occurrence has to seen to have existed/sustained consistently, over a long period of time".

The Court further emphasized that divorce could not be granted solely on the grounds of an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, as this is not a statutory basis under Hindu marriage law. It also found the appellant's reliance on previous case law to be misplaced, as there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate ongoing mental cruelty resulting from the respondent's actions or beliefs.

This ruling follows a series of court-ordered mediation sessions, including one on August 14, 2024, where both parties initially showed a willingness to reconcile for the sake of their children. However, during subsequent hearings, conflicting statements from both counsels indicated that these reconciliation efforts had failed.

Ultimately, the High Court upheld the decision of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur, who had previously dismissed the husband's divorce petition, finding no grounds to overturn the ruling.