Long Separation, No Effort to Reconcile Can Be Ground for Divorce: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has directed that a prolonged period of separation between spouses, with the absence of any genuine effort to rebuild the marriage, can amount to mental cruelty and it becomes a valid ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The judgment came in a case where the couple, both doctors in government service had been living separately for over 15 years after a marriage that lasted barely two to three months of actual cohabitation. The Supreme Court upheld the divorce granted in favour of the husband, observing that a marriage cannot be kept alive only as a legal formality when the relationship has effectively ended. A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that the spouses had chosen separate professional and geographical paths, the wife continuing her work as a gynaecologist in Nadiyad Khera, Gujarat, and the husband serving as a doctor in Rajasthan and both had remained estranged. The Court observed that in such situations, separation is not just about one spouse abandoning the other but may reflect a "shared, de facto abandonment" of the marriage itself. "The intentional maintenance of distinct lifestyles, separate domiciles, and the total cessation of marital interaction over fifteen years establishes a de facto abandonment of the marital covenant by both sides," the bench said. What was the dispute? The couple married on December 5, 2007, in Nadiyad Khera, Gujarat. No children were born from the marriage. The husband filed for divorce in 2009 before the Family Court at Bharatpur, Rajasthan, alleging cruelty. The Family Court rejected his plea, holding that he had failed to prove cruelty. However, the Rajasthan high court reversed this in January 2025, granting divorce. Among the grounds considered by the high court were the wife allegedly denying conjugal rights on several occasions, sleeping in a locked room during the brief period of cohabitation, and the couple's long separation. The wife then challenged the decision before the Supreme Court. What did the Supreme Court ruling say? The Supreme Court noted that even during the short period of cohabitation, the wife used to sleep early, lock her room from inside and not open the door when the husband knocked, leaving him to sleep in a separate room, a fact the wife did not deny. Referring to its earlier judgment in Samar Ghosh versus Jaya Ghosh, the bench reiterated that "unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty." "Matrimony is not a one-sided right to be enforced, but a shared covenant of emotional support, fidelity, responsibility and care, where the rights of one are always tied to the duties they owe to the other," the bench said. While the wife consistently maintained before every court, including the Supreme Court, her desire to continue the marriage, the bench found this difficult to accept at face value. Mediation ordered by the Supreme Court itself in May 2025 had failed, as reflected in a mediation report dated November 27, 2025. The court also noted that it was not in dispute that the wife continued her government job in Gujarat, and that no evidence had been placed on record to show she had genuinely attempted to move to Bharatpur to join the husband. "Actions speak more than the dry words," the bench remarked. Invoking its powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to do "complete justice," the Court dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. "Prolongation of a matrimonial relationship would further lead not only to escalation of frustration in a dead relationship, which has already decayed and is decomposing day by day creating foul sociological, psychological and mental hollowness in life resulting in denial of a free and independent environment to flourish," the bench observed. It noted that both parties are financially independent doctors in government service, and that there are no children from the marriage, meaning the divorce would not have a devastating effect on any third party. The apex court dismissed the wife's appeal, upholding the divorce decree.